Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which law firms specialize in suing the president for acting without statutory authorization?
Executive Summary
Two distinct patterns emerge from the materials provided: established litigation firms and state attorneys general have pursued ultra vires and First Amendment claims against presidential actions alleged to lack statutory authorization, and a small set of Big Law firms have both sued and been sued or pressured, showing divergent responses within the bar. The recent wave of lawsuits and scholarship identifies a growth in nonstatutory review and ultra vires claims since 2016, with named firms and public actors—such as Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Paul, Weiss, and state attorneys general led by Letitia James—playing prominent roles in contesting presidential orders and other executive actions [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Why the Courts Are Seeing More “Acting Without Authorization” Suits — A Rising Trend Story
The academic and policy literature included shows a sharp increase in ultra vires and nonstatutory review claims challenging executive action, particularly in areas like climate, environment, and political retaliation, and traces that expansion to the post‑2016 litigation environment where more plaintiffs invoke the courts to police executive overreach. The Columbia law blog analysis documents the rise of ultra vires claims and catalogs trends in pending or closed cases, asserting a measurable uptick since 2016 that coincides with heightened political polarization and more aggressive executive initiatives; this growth has created a market for lawyers experienced in separation‑of‑powers and nonstatutory remedies [4]. The broader implication is that courts are increasingly asked to decide when the president has stepped beyond statutory or constitutional bounds, and litigants range from private firms to states and institutional plaintiffs.
2. Who’s Sued the President or the Administration — Names that Keep Appearing
Several major law firms and institutional actors are repeatedly mentioned as plaintiffs or central figures in litigation alleging presidential action without statutory authorization. Jenner & Block and WilmerHale are highlighted for bringing suits against the Trump administration over executive orders that those firms argued violated First Amendment and due process rights, signaling that established firms will both represent clients and assert their own rights against the executive branch. Perkins Coie filed a complaint alleging an executive order was retaliatory and ultra vires, representing a private‑sector law firm directly challenging federal agencies; state actors led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, joined by 18 AGs, brought suit over an executive order they labeled an unconstitutional attempt to seize control of elections [3] [5] [1]. Paul, Weiss appears on the other side of coercive pressure and settlement dynamics, illustrating divergent firm responses [2].
3. Which Firms Market Themselves as Constitutional or Separation‑of‑Powers Litigators
Beyond headline plaintiffs, a range of boutique and appellate groups position themselves to handle such suits, emphasizing constitutional and separation‑of‑powers expertise. Kasowitz’s appellate group and Holtzman Vogel’s Constitutional Law Group advertise experience litigating separation‑of‑powers issues and government‑action cases; while their public materials do not explicitly assert a history of suing the president personally, they present the relevant skill set for ultra vires and nonstatutory challenges. OALaw is described as experienced in constitutional litigation but without a named record of suing a president; this suggests that both specialized boutiques and major appellate teams are available to litigants seeking to challenge executive action [6] [7] [8]. The market thus includes national firms with public‑law desks and smaller shops that emphasize constitutional litigation.
4. How Firms Respond Differently — Litigation, Settlement, or Strategic Retreat
The sources document contrasting strategies among Big Law firms when confronted with executive coercion or orders: some firms sued, while others settled or retreated from conflict to avoid regulatory or political consequences. Paul, Weiss settled after being targeted by an order, a resolution framed by critics as capitulation; by contrast, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Perkins Coie pursued litigation claiming First Amendment violations and ultra vires conduct, showing a willingness to litigate even when suits target the administration directly [2] [3] [5]. State actors like New York’s AG chose litigation as a sovereignty and public‑interest tool, underscoring that respondents include both private firms fighting for client and firm interests and public prosecutors enforcing statutory or constitutional limits [1].
5. What Legal Tools Plaintiffs Use and What the Scholarship Says About Outcomes
Plaintiffs rely on nonstatutory review and ultra vires doctrine to seek judicial redress for executive actions that lack clear statutory authorization; the issue brief on nonstatutory review highlights historical precedents (Steel Seizure, Leedom v. Kyne) and recent examples where courts have entertained such claims. The Perkins Coie complaint exemplifies modern deployment of ultra vires and First Amendment theories to block allegedly retaliatory executive action, and the Columbia analysis frames these claims within an observable empirical increase, though outcomes remain fact‑specific and jurisdictionally variable [9] [5] [4]. The materials show that success depends on record, standing, and judicial willingness to engage in separation‑of‑powers adjudication, making subject‑matter expertise and appellate readiness crucial for plaintiffs.