As several major American law firms challenge punitive measures adopted by the Trump administration, the legal battle unfolding in Washington is now mobilizing even European bar associations.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear a dispute on May 14 that goes far beyond the scope of relations between the American administration and several major law firms. The issue at hand: a series of Executive Orders adopted in 2025, restricting access to public markets, federal buildings, and security clearances for firms that have represented political opponents of the president. Among the firms directly targeted are Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and WilmerHale, which have chosen to challenge these measures in court, while nine other firms have preferred to reach agreements with the administration to try to mitigate their effects.
These measures, initially invalidated, have sparked an unprecedented mobilization within the legal community. The College of Commercial Arbitrators (CCA) filed an amicus curiae brief emphasizing that commercial arbitration relies on the independence of judges, lawyers, and arbitrators. The document, prepared in part by Daniel Schimmel, Counsel for Amicus Curiae and an attorney at Foley Hoag in New York, highlights that an arbitral seat is only credible if legal professionals can operate without political pressure and if courts remain free to confirm or enforce awards, even if they displease the executive branch.
The CCA also sheds light on historical precedents: from the Third Reich to the U.S.S.R. to Franco’s Spain, authoritarian regimes have systematically sought to control arbitration and weaken the legal profession, seen as an essential check on power. According to the brief, these examples show that attacks on the independence of defense counsel often serve as an early warning of a deterioration in the rule of law.
In Europe, on April 1st, a coalition of over twenty European bar associations, led by the Paris Bar, the Deutscher Anwaltverein, and the Warsaw Bar, submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Appeals Court. Signatories include the Law Society of England and Wales, the CCBE, and several national bar associations representing over a million lawyers in total. Their position is clear: sanctioning law firms based on their clients or cases constitutes a direct attack on the independence of the profession.
In a statement released on April 8, the Paris Bar recalls that the independence of defense counsel is “an unassailable pillar of the rule of law” and highlights the “systemic risks” that would result from any institutional retaliatory logic against lawyers. The European brief emphasizes that recent history – in Europe and elsewhere – shows that attacks on the legal profession often accompany a broader weakening of democratic checks and balances.
Beyond the American case, this transatlantic mobilization reveals a common concern: protecting the lawyer to protect justice. The decision of the Appeals Court will weigh far beyond the constitutional debate alone, as it touches on the fundamental structures of democratic functioning and trust in institutions.
Arnaud Dumourier
