Jenner & Block

The firm that sued instead of settling

In March 2025, Jenner & Block became the fourth major law firm targeted by the Trump administration’s campaign against firms it linked to political opponents. On March 25, President Trump signed Executive Order 14246, which accused the firm of partisan representation and directed agencies to restrict its employees from federal buildings, strip lawyers’ security clearances, investigate the firm’s diversity hiring practices, and terminate government contracts held by the firm’s clients. (Bloomberg Law)

The order singled out former partner Andrew Weissmann. He had been a Jenner partner from 2006 to 2015, then became chief of the Justice Department’s fraud task force that prosecuted executives at Enron, and joined Robert Mueller’s special-counsel team in 2017. Weissmann rejoined the firm in 2020 as co-chair of its investigations, compliance and defense team, then left in 2021 to become the top lawyer at MacAndrews & Forbes, the parent company of Revlon. In a March 14 speech at the Justice Department, Trump had called Weissmann “scum.” (Bloomberg Law)

Other firms chose to negotiate. Paul, Weiss reached an agreement with the administration that included $40 million in pro bono services for administration goals — a deal Weissmann publicly criticized, writing that “the right response is not appeasement or silence” and that “capitulation serves as a clarion call to further such improper action by this administration.” Jenner & Block went to court instead. On March 28 it sued, and that same day Judge John Bates granted a temporary restraining order blocking the order’s provisions on federal buildings, government contracts and personnel. (Bloomberg Law; Just Security)

On May 23, 2025, Bates granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment and denied the government’s motion to dismiss, declaring Executive Order 14246 unlawful and “null and void” for violating the First Amendment. He permanently enjoined the government from implementing or enforcing the order and directed agencies to rescind steps already taken and resume ordinary dealings with the firm as if the order had never issued. (Just Security)

Bates was direct about what the order really was. He called it “uniquely harmful” for its focus on pro bono work, saying it sullied the tradition that lawyers pursue ideals higher than profit, and that “it casts a chill over the whole of the legal profession, leaving lawyers around the country weighing the necessity of vigorous representation against the peril of crossing the federal government.” He found the order had forced Jenner & Block to choose between changing its speech and suffering a serious injury to its livelihood — the administration had threatened about 40 percent of the firm’s income, which came from government contractors or affiliates. “Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the constitution,” he wrote. (Law Gazette)

After the ruling, the firm said it was “pleased with the court’s decision to decisively strike down an unconstitutional attack on our clients’ right to have zealous, independent counsel and our firm’s right to represent our clients fully and without compromise,” adding: “we fiercely advocate for our clients under all circumstances.” (Law Gazette)

The fight did not end there. On June 2, Bates refused the government’s request to narrow the ruling. On July 21, the Justice Department appealed to the D.C. Circuit. In February 2026 the D.C. Circuit consolidated Jenner’s appeal with the related Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey cases and scheduled oral argument for May 14, 2026, with state attorneys general filing an amicus brief in support of the firms that April. (Just Security)

A century-old Chicago litigation house

The firm was founded in Chicago in 1914 as Newman, Poppenhusen & Stern — a date the firm itself marked with a centennial publication in 2014. It took the name Jenner & Block in 1969. (Jenner & Block; Bloomberg Law)

The name comes in part from Albert Jenner Jr., a former assistant counsel to the Warren Commission who in the 1950s established the firm’s relationship with General Dynamics — a relationship that continues today. General Dynamics has received more than $102 billion in unclassified federal contracts since the start of fiscal 2021, including a contract worth more than $43 million from the Health and Human Services Department in 2025. (Bloomberg Law)

By revenue the firm sits among the country’s 100 highest-grossing law firms, with $582 million in 2023 according to The American Lawyer. It describes itself as a litigation powerhouse, representing clients before federal and appeals courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it runs seven offices: Century City, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. (Bloomberg Law; Jenner & Block)

A pro-bono and civil-rights footprint

The pro-bono identity that Judge Bates singled out has deep roots. In 2003, firm partner Paul M. Smith presented the oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas as co-counsel with Lambda Legal, in the Supreme Court decision that struck down the Texas antisodomy law. The firm had earlier filed an amicus brief in Romer v. Evans, and later served as co-counsel in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the first major court challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In 2011 the firm became the first national law firm inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame. (Jenner & Block)

More recently, the firm has represented LGBTQ organization PFLAG in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s order cutting funding to institutions providing gender-affirming care — the same administration whose executive order Bates later struck down. (Bloomberg Law)

Matters and people

The firm’s recent docket includes representing USA Gymnastics in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy arising from the sexual abuse of athletes, a case that produced a $380 million trust for survivors; producing an independent report for the Chicago Blackhawks investigating allegations that a former player was sexually assaulted by an assistant coach; winning a jury verdict of roughly $102 million in compensatory and $12 million in punitive damages for client Hetronic against former foreign distributors in a Lanham Act dispute; defending clients under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act; and acting for food-and-beverage clients including Mondelez International, the Kraft Heinz Foods Co. and the Kellogg Co. (Jenner & Block)

On the people side, the firm’s Washington, D.C. office is where Amir Ali practiced as an associate from 2013 to 2017, before he moved on to civil-rights appellate work. The firm’s own history notes that its Washington practice has long centered on appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Jenner & Block)

What this profile does not claim

• It does not state the year the Washington, D.C. office opened. The firm’s own centennial timeline is ambiguous on the point.
• It does not repeat the early history involving Floyd Thompson or the origin story of the firm’s pro bono program, because those could not be verified from sources read in full.
• It does not describe the outcome of the May 14, 2026 D.C. Circuit oral argument. The litigation tracker had not been updated past April 3, 2026 at the time this profile was written.
• It does not quote the Bates opinion beyond what fully-read sources carried.