Overview: A Late-Night Memo With Deep Implications
“Let’s kill all the lawyers” is a line from William Shakespear’s Henry VI. The full quote is: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”. It is among Shakespeare’s most famous lines, and apparently, also an inspiration for President Trump.
On March 21, 2025, in a late-night move reminiscent of authoritarian tactics, President Trump quietly launched a sweeping new campaign—this time not against migrants directly, but against the attorneys who defend them. In a late-night White House memo, the administration accused immigration lawyers of helping clients commit asylum fraud and instructed top officials to punish those involved in allegedly dishonest legal practices to circumvent immigration policies enacted to ensure national security.
While framed as a defense of professional ethics and national security, this order signals a fundamental shift in how the federal government views—and treats—the legal profession itself.
This action not only threatens the legal profession but also undermines the foundational principles of justice in the United States.
Aiming at Immigration Lawyers
Trump’s memo singles out immigration attorneys, accusing them of “coaching” asylum seekers to conceal facts in order to obtain protection unlawfully. The administration claims this constitutes a threat to national security and public safety.
However, immigration experts say this accusation misrepresents how asylum law works. Attorneys are required to help clients understand the legal framework and to present facts truthfully—guidance that is essential in an extremely complex and high-stakes process.
Further Reading:
The Reality of Immigration Lawyering
The administration’s accusations against immigration attorneys lack substantial evidence:
- Legal Representation: Attorneys prepare clients for legal proceedings by explaining processes, gathering evidence, and helping them present their cases within legal frameworks. This is standard legal practice, not deception.
- Complexity of Immigration Law: The immigration system is intricate, and access to legal counsel significantly impacts case outcomes. Lawyers play a crucial role in ensuring due process.
- Ethical Practices: While misconduct exists in any profession, immigration attorneys often collaborate with government agencies to report fraudulent actors and educate communities on finding qualified legal help.
The Presidential Memorandum: A Tool for Suppression
The memorandum, titled “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court,” instructs the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to take disciplinary measures against attorneys deemed to engage in “frivolous” litigation, particularly in immigration cases.
- Identifying lawyers involved in alleged unethical practices.
- Blocking these attorneys from interacting with government agencies.
- Initiating investigations that could lead to sanctions, termination of contracts, or criminal referrals.
While framed as an effort to uphold professional ethics, the directive appears to specifically target immigration attorneys, accusing them of coaching clients to lie and manipulating the asylum process. This focus raises concerns about immigrants’ access to legal representation and the broader implications for legal advocacy. Additionally, the Trump administration’s directive to seek sanctions against these attorneys marks a significant shift in the government’s approach to legal practices associated with immigration cases.
Erosion of Legal Independence
This directive is part of a broader campaign against the legal profession:
- Targeting Law Firms: The administration has issued executive orders against prominent law firms like Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, revoking security clearances and federal contracts. The misconduct of lawyers and law firms threatens important aspects of national security and public integrity, as highlighted by the administration’s actions against those engaging in perceived frivolous lawsuits.
- Defiance of Judicial Authority: Federal attorneys have refused to comply with court orders, challenging the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power.
- Chilling Effect on Legal Representation: The aggressive stance has made law firms hesitant to litigate against the administration, potentially leaving individuals and organizations without adequate legal representation.
What’s in the Memo? Key Directives at a Glance
The memo, issued at 10:14 PM ET, directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to initiate the following actions:
- Strictly Enforce Ethics Rules
Immigration lawyers must follow federal ethics guidelines, including ensuring all claims are factually and legally sound. - Sanction “Abusive” Litigation
Attorneys filing lawsuits against the government deemed meritless could face penalties, including monetary sanctions and disciplinary action. - Launch an 8-Year Review of Past Cases
The administration wants officials to examine immigration-related legal work dating back nearly a decade to uncover alleged misconduct. - Terminate Contracts and Revoke Clearances
If misconduct is found, law firms may lose federal contracts, and individual lawyers could see their security clearances revoked. - Refer attorneys for criminal prosecution
Official Rationale: To uphold “professional ethics”
Unstated Goal: To silence dissent and cripple legal defense of immigrants and asylum seekers
What’s Really Behind the Memo?
The order recycles a long-debunked narrative: that immigration lawyers are encouraging clients to lie to game the asylum system.
But here’s what the facts say:
Reality vs. Rhetoric
|
Claim |
Fact |
| Lawyers coach clients to lie | Attorneys prepare clients to meet legal definitions, just like any other legal field. |
| Legal aid promotes fraud | Legal representation reduces fraud by helping clients navigate the system properly. |
| Immigrants are scamming the system | Studies show most asylum claims are legitimate and filed by individuals fleeing violence, persecution, or war. |
What the Data Shows About Legal Access
Legal representation is the single most important factor in asylum outcomes.
Asylum Grant Rate by Legal Status
|
Representation |
Approval Rate |
| Represented by attorney | 45-60% |
| No attorney | <10% |
Source: TRAC Immigration (2023)
Even highly qualified asylum seekers can lose their cases without competent legal help. This isn’t about fraud—it’s about due process.
Background: Ethical Rules Are Already in Place
Under existing federal regulations, attorneys must follow rules of conduct in immigration court, including adhering to the rules governing meritorious claims as directed by President Trump, which instructs the Attorney General to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms that fail to adhere to professional conduct rules. These include:
- Avoiding frivolous claims
- Not using litigation to harass or delay
- Ensuring claims are based on legal precedent and client testimony
Legal Ethics: What’s Actually at Stake
Attorneys are already bound by strict professional conduct rules:
- Rule 11 (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure): Prohibits filing claims without factual or legal basis
- Bar Association Rules: Mandate honesty, client loyalty, and courtroom integrity
Disciplinary action is usually handled by state bars or courts, not federal prosecutors or the White House. Trump’s attempt to use the DOJ to punish lawyers blurs the lines between politics and the law.
Learn More:
- ABA Rules of Professional Conduct
- Understanding Rule 11
But critics warn that the Trump administration is using these standards as a political weapon, targeting those who challenge its policies in court.
Trump claims the order protects the public from legal abuse. However, legal scholars argue that it crosses ethical lines by politicizing attorney discipline and punishing firms based on their clients or legal positions.
Key Concerns:
- Federal prosecutors traditionally do not impose attorney sanctions—that power lies with state bars and the courts
- The memo blurs the lines between legal oversight and political retaliation
- It could deter attorneys from representing immigrants, asylum seekers, or critics of the administration
How This Could Undermine the Legal System
Trump’s memo isn’t just rhetorical—it proposes real structural changes with dangerous consequences as the federal government appears to impose sanctions on attorneys and law firms for what is considered frivolous litigation against it.
1. Blocking Legal Access
- DHS/DOJ could reject legal representation forms (G-28, E-28), severing the attorney-client relationship.
- Denying access to immigration courts, ICE facilities, USCIS offices, or federal courts would leave thousands defenseless.
Who’s Affected?
- Asylum-seeking families in detention
- Immigrants in deportation proceedings
- Green card holders under review
- Pro bono attorneys at border legal clinics
2. Disrupting Pro Bono Networks
Organizations like the CARA Pro Bono Project and law school clinics are already stretched thin. This order would:
- Intimidate volunteers
- Freeze funding
- Disrupt access to detained clients
3. Undermining Future Legal Talent
Law students rely on clinics for real-world experience. If schools fear government retaliation, they may shut down these programs, leading to:
- Fewer trained immigration attorneys
- Less representation for vulnerable immigrants
A Legal Profession Under Siege
This is not the first time Trump has targeted legal actors:
- In 2020, he sought to blacklist Perkins Coie, barring them from federal contracts
- Recently, he called for the impeachment of a federal judge who ordered disclosures related to covert migrant deportation flights, accusing the judge of actions that violate professional conduct rules
Even conservative legal voices are expressing alarm. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public statement condemning these attacks on judicial independence.
Historical Parallels and Authoritarian Tactics
History shows us that when legal institutions are undermined, so is democracy. The administration’s actions highlight the importance of adhering to the rules governing attorney conduct, especially when lawyers engage in frivolous lawsuits against the government. President Trump emphasizes that lawyers who violate these rules must be held accountable, particularly when their misconduct endangers national security and public safety.
Past Examples:
- Turkey (post-2016 coup): Thousands of attorneys were jailed or disbarred
- Russia: State-controlled judiciary and politicized “ethics” reviews silence dissident lawyers
- Nazi Germany: Jewish and dissident lawyers were stripped of licenses and clients
Trump’s memo adopts the same playbook under the guise of “professional ethics.”
Trump’s approach is not without precedent, but the intensity and scope are new. Previous presidents have clashed with attorneys—think Nixon and the “Saturday Night Massacre”—but rarely has there been a sustained executive campaign to strip law firms of contracts, revoke building access, and launch ethics reviews en masse.
Why Now? The Bigger Strategy Behind the Memo
Legal experts believe this directive fits a broader pattern of executive overreach and attempts to intimidate legal professionals. It’s not just about lawyers coaching migrants (a claim with little evidence); it’s about:
- Deterring future lawsuits
- Scaring law firms out of controversial cases
- Isolating immigrants by removing legal protection
- Punishing firms aligned with pro-immigrant causes
This comes after prior efforts to blacklist firms like Perkins Coie, strip their government access, and pressure clients to drop them.
Trump’s Justification
When asked about the actions, Trump defended the crackdown, saying these firms had pursued him “ruthlessly, violently, illegally” for years. He implied that his actions are retaliation for years of politically motivated litigation against him.
“They’re not babies. They’re very sophisticated people. Those law firms did bad things,” Trump told reporters.
This framing suggests a personal vendetta driving executive enforcement—something legal experts say raises serious constitutional concerns.
Who’s Being Targeted—and Why
Trump’s directive appears to be a direct response to the growing legal pressure his administration faces. Since the start of his second term, over 100 lawsuits have been filed against White House policies, including those related to:
- Immigration enforcement and asylum restrictions
- Transgender rights and civil liberties
- Executive overreach and transparency
In response, the administration has issued federal government warrants mandating Attorney General oversight of attorneys and law firms engaged in litigation against the federal government. This includes seeking sanctions or disciplinary actions against those whose conduct in federal court is deemed inappropriate or frivolous, particularly in high-stakes cases that involve national security, public safety, or election integrity.
Key Firms and Cases Under Fire:
- Perkins Coie (challenged Trump’s federal building ban on its attorneys)
- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (struck a $40M pro bono deal to avoid penalties)
- Covington & Burling LLP (offered pro bono services to Jack Smith, a Trump critic)
- Keker, Van Nest & Peters (working with the ACLU on immigrant rights)
Trump has accused these firms of using the courts for political warfare, while critics argue his actions are meant to silence dissent and dismantle legal checks on his power.
Legal Experts Sound the Alarm
Legal scholars and bar associations are warning that this memo could create a chilling effect on legal advocacy.
“This is a clear effort to chill and intimidate the legal profession,”
said Ben Wizner of the ACLU.
Legal groups warn that the courts cannot function without independent attorneys who are free to bring cases—especially when those cases involve constitutional rights, due process, and abuse of power.
Lawyers for Civil Rights called the memo “hypocritical,” pointing out that Trump and his legal allies, including Rudy Giuliani, have themselves violated ethics rules—some being disbarred or sanctioned over false claims about the 2020 election.
Key Concerns:
- Targeting lawyers based on the clients they serve is unprecedented.
- Retroactive reviews of past cases could weaponize ethics enforcement.
- Law firms may abandon immigration cases to avoid being blacklisted.
- Chill free speech and advocacy
- Politicize bar discipline
- Undermine legal independence
- Intimidate lawyers from taking cases against the government
- Reduce access to counsel for immigrants in detention and others facing government action.
- Erode public trust in the independence of courts and the legal system.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and National Immigration Project are urging attorneys to document any retaliatory investigations and seek legal support.
Who Is Most at Risk?
1. Immigration Attorneys and Law Firms
Especially those engaged in asylum, humanitarian relief, or deportation defense, immigration lawyers and law firms are most at risk.
2. Pro Bono Networks
- Nonprofits and legal aid groups offering free representation could lose government funding or access to clients in detention.
3. Law Students and Clinics
- University-based legal clinics may face political pressure, threatening the future pipeline of trained immigration lawyers.
4. Immigrants Themselves
- Without legal representation, asylum seekers face overwhelming odds. According to TRAC Immigration:
- Only 17% of unrepresented asylum seekers win their cases.
- With legal help, success rates can rise to 45-60%.
How This Could Affect the Courts
Immigration courts are already part of the executive branch, housed under the Department of Justice—not an independent judiciary. This makes them especially vulnerable to political manipulation.
Unless Congress passes reforms like H.R. 6577 (which proposed an Article I independent immigration court system), the DOJ will continue to control how immigration courts operate, which judges are appointed, and what cases can be heard.
Track H.R. 6577 on Congress.gov
For more expert analysis:
- American Bar Association’s Position on Government Retaliation
- National Immigration Project Statement
What Can Be Done?
For Attorneys & Law Firms
The legal community must unite to protect the independence of the profession:
- Collective Action: Law firms, bar associations, and legal advocates should stand together against attempts to undermine legal advocacy.
- Public Awareness: Educating the public about the essential role of attorneys in upholding justice and defending rights is crucial.
- Judicial Support: Courts must assert their authority and ensure that executive actions do not infringe upon the constitutional rights of legal practitioners.
- Join amicus briefs challenging the order
- Lobby Congress to reintroduce H.R. 6577—to establish independent immigration courts Track the status of H.R. 6577 on Congress.gov
For the Public
- Support organizations like Immigrant Justice Corps, RAICES, or AILA
- Demand that Congress and your state bar associations speak out
- Vote for leaders who defend judicial independence
FAQs: Trump’s March 22, 2025 Executive Order Targeting Immigration Attorneys
1. What does the executive order do?
The memo instructs the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to:
- Investigate attorneys who file “frivolous, unreasonable, or vexatious” lawsuits against the federal government
- Prioritize enforcement of attorney discipline in immigration cases
- Review past litigation going back 8 years
- Recommend sanctions, contract terminations, or revocation of security clearances
2. Who is specifically targeted by this order?
The order focuses on:
- Immigration attorneys, especially those representing asylum seekers
- Law firms involved in high-profile litigation against the administration
- Attorneys accused of helping clients submit fraudulent or deceptive immigration claims
3. Is the executive order legally enforceable?
The order itself does not change existing law, but it reinterprets enforcement priorities. It relies on:
- DOJ and DHS internal regulations
- Executive power over federal contracts and access
- Political influence over disciplinary referrals
However, any sanctions or suspensions must still pass through existing ethical review systems and judicial oversight, which may limit its reach.
4. What legal standards does the order claim to be enforcing?
It cites:
- Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (prohibiting baseless legal claims)
- DOJ’s professional conduct rules for immigration proceedings
- General ethical guidelines for attorneys (truthfulness, non-abuse of process)
5. Can the federal government revoke a law firm’s contract for filing lawsuits?
Yes—but only if:
- The firm is under federal contract, and
- The contract includes compliance or ethics clauses that are allegedly violated
Even then, the decision is legally contestable, especially if it’s seen as politically retaliatory.
6. What about security clearances? Can they be revoked by executive order?
Yes, the president has broad authority to grant or revoke security clearances. However, revocation must be tied to legitimate national security concerns—not political motives—or it may be challenged in court.
7. What kind of lawsuits does the administration consider “vexatious” or “frivolous”?
According to the memo, these include:
- Cases challenging immigration enforcement
- Suits based on “partisan” or “anti-administration” arguments
- Allegedly meritless class actions or injunctions
Critics argue this label is vague and used to suppress legitimate legal challenges.
8. Are immigration attorneys really coaching clients to lie, as the memo claims?
No credible evidence supports this broad accusation. Attorneys are:
- Required to explain asylum law
- Obligated to help clients present truthful, consistent evidence
- Held accountable by state bars and immigration courts for misconduct
This claim revives long-standing myths, previously pushed by anti-immigrant officials.
9. Is it legal for the DOJ or DHS to look back 8 years into attorney conduct?
Yes, but such retroactive reviews:
- Must follow due process
- Require evidence of actual misconduct
- Cannot be used as a blanket justification to punish political opposition
10. Could immigration lawyers lose access to courts or detention centers under this order?
Potentially, yes. If agencies reject official representation forms (like G-28s or E-28s), it could:
- Cut off attorney-client communication
- Block legal representation
- Violate due process rights of migrants and asylum seekers
11. How are advocacy groups responding?
Organizations like:
are:
- Condemning the order as unconstitutional
- Preparing litigation and amicus briefs
- Calling on bar associations to defend attorney independence
12. Could this order impact law school clinics or pro bono programs?
Yes. Risks include:
- Reduced institutional support for immigration clinics
- Fear of political backlash
- Chilling effect on new attorneys entering the field
13. What is the risk for small firms or solo attorneys?
Smaller practices without large resources or institutional backing may be:
- Less able to withstand government scrutiny
- More vulnerable to intimidation or contract cancellation
- Pressured to avoid high-risk immigration or civil rights cases
14. Can this order be challenged in court?
Yes. Legal grounds include:
- First Amendment retaliation
- Due process violations
- Overreach of executive power
Some parts, like security clearance decisions, may be harder to reverse.
15. What precedent does this set for future administrations?
If left unchallenged, this order:
- Could normalize retaliation against attorneys
- Undermine judicial independence
- Make government criticism professionally dangerous
16. What should attorneys and firms do right now?
- Document all communications with federal agencies
- Review federal contracts for vulnerability
- Join legal coalitions preparing a response
- Stay informed through organizations like AILA
17. How many lawsuits has the Trump administration faced since 2021?
Over 100 federal lawsuits, primarily concerning:
- Immigration enforcement
- Transgender rights
- Climate and environmental deregulation
- Executive power and transparency
18. What should immigrants and asylum seekers know?
- This order targets lawyers, not clients directly
- Representation remains critical—do not attempt to navigate the process alone
- If your attorney is affected, you still have the right to legal counsel
Conclusion: The Stakes Are Bigger Than Immigration Law
Trump’s order isn’t just about silencing immigration attorneys—it’s about consolidating unchecked executive power. Legal professionals who challenge this administration are being labeled as unethical, dangerous, or even criminal.
If left unchecked, this could spread beyond immigration law, threatening environmental attorneys, civil rights lawyers, journalists, and watchdogs who hold the government accountable.
We are witnessing a test of our legal system’s resilience. Now more than ever, attorneys, advocates, and everyday citizens must unite to defend the rule of law—before the rule of law can no longer defend us.
Need Guidance? Get Trusted Answers from a Leading Immigration Attorney
If you or your law firm are unsure how Trump’s March 22, 2025 executive order may impact your legal rights, your clients, or your practice, don’t navigate it alone. This is a pivotal moment for immigration attorneys and advocates across the country.
For clear, informed legal guidance, contact Attorney Richard T. Herman—a nationally recognized immigration lawyer with over 30 years of experience defending immigrants, attorneys, and the legal profession itself.
Visit www.lawfirm4immigrants.com or call (800) 808-4013 to schedule a consultation.
Stay Informed and Get Involved
- Track federal lawsuits and executive orders: Justia Litigation Tracker
- Support legal defense and civil rights groups:
- Contact your representatives: Find your member of Congress
Take Action or Learn More
- Know Your Rights: Immigrant Legal Resource Center
- Support Legal Defense Networks: National Immigration Law Center
- Track Executive Orders: Federal Register Presidential Actions
Resources:
