• A federal judge has ruled that Trump's executive order against WilmerHale is unconstitutional.
• This marks the third major loss for Trump concerning his orders targeting law firms.
• Judge Richard Leon emphasized the importance of judicial independence in his decision.
• WilmerHale previously employed Robert Mueller, heightening the order's scrutiny.
• The ruling has implications for the Trump administration's strategy against perceived adversaries in the legal field.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled on Tuesday that President Trump's executive order targeting WilmerHale is unconstitutional, permanently blocking the administration from enforcing it. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon stated in his ruling that the executive order was a form of "coercion" aimed to suppress the firm’s representation of "disfavored causes and clients." "This Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional," Leon wrote, underscoring that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment of the Founding Fathers, according to CBS News and The Hill.

This decision is the latest in a series of defeats for Trump’s efforts against various law firms, including Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, which have also successfully contested similar executive orders in court. Judge Leon noted that these punitive measures appear to target firms that have litigated against the administration or represented individuals in opposition to it, reinforcing a view that Trump's administration was trying to impose "severe sanctions" to force compliance. "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary," wrote Leon, adding, "the Founding Fathers knew this!" as a pivotal rationale for his ruling, according to HuffPost and Business Insider.

The context around WilmerHale's case is notable as it relates to the firm’s prior employment of Robert Mueller, who led the investigation into Trump's connections to Russia during the 2016 election. This investigation was a focal point of Trump's animosity toward the firm. The judge's decision not only protects WilmerHale but also reaffirms broader constitutional rights concerning legal representation and the independence of the judiciary, as highlighted in the sentiments shared by firm officials celebrating the ruling's implications for their constitutional rights and reputation, according to The New York Times.