WilmerHale defeats Trump sanctions in a scathing 73-page ruling spiced with outrage — and stew
A federal judge in the United States has delivered a searing rebuke to Donald Trump’s attempt to punish top law firm WilmerHale, using 27 exclamation marks and even a gumbo recipe in a ruling that legal observers are calling both historic and surreal.
President Trump had issued an executive order last month, sanctioning WilmerHale and accusing it of “conduct detrimental to critical American interests”. Trump linked the firm to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who led the 2016 investigation into Russian election interference. Legal experts viewed the order as a politically motivated reprisal.
The case came before Judge Richard J Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, who responded with a blistering 73-page judgment dismantling the executive order and describing it as a direct assault on the independence of the legal profession.
“The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting,” Judge Leon wrote in the opening paragraph. “The Founding Fathers knew this!… Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no Executive Order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights.”
Embed from Getty ImagesHe concluded that Trump’s order was “unconstitutional in its entirety,” adding, “To rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!”
Such emotionally charged language — especially in a federal ruling — is practically unheard of. But Judge Leon didn’t stop at punctuation. In an extraordinary footnote, he compared Trump’s executive order to a failed gumbo stew and even provided a cooking recipe.
“The Order is akin to a gumbo,” he wrote. “Sections 2 through 5 are the meaty ingredients — the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters. But it is the roux — here, § 1 — which holds everything together… This gumbo gives the Court heartburn.”
Legal commentators were left both stunned and amused. One law professor tweeted, “We’ve officially entered the culinary phase of American constitutional law.” Another simply noted, “This is the most entertaining takedown of executive overreach I’ve ever read.”
Trump’s sanctioning of WilmerHale is part of a broader campaign targeting major law firms. According to sources, the president has netted over £700 million in pro bono services by leveraging these sanctions against firms like A&O Shearman and Kirkland & Ellis. While some individual lawyers have quit in protest — including Rachel Cohen, a former associate at Skadden — others have mounted formal legal challenges.
WilmerHale’s victory comes on the heels of a similarly unorthodox judgment in favour of Perkins Coie, another firm sanctioned by Trump. That ruling opened with the Shakespearean barb: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
The sheer theatricality of Judge Leon’s ruling marks a new chapter in the fraught legal battles between Trump and America’s legal establishment. But the substance of the decision holds serious weight: it reasserts the legal community’s right to operate free from presidential retaliation.
In a joint statement, WilmerHale partners said they were “heartened by the court’s unwavering commitment to the rule of law” and “grateful for the clarity this decision brings in defending lawyers who work in the public interest”.
Trump’s office has not yet responded to the ruling, though insiders suggest the decision could trigger another wave of combative executive actions — or appeals.
For now, though, WilmerHale has emerged victorious — and legal history has been made, one exclamation mark at a time.
