Shortly after the inauguration for his second term, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order setting the stage for widespread deportations and restricting immigrants’ access to legal representation.
In response, immigration advocacy groups collaborated with Gibson Dunn, a leading law firm equipped to confront the administration’s policies. In January, Gibson Dunn joined these groups in filing a lawsuit aimed at reinstating legal aid for immigrants facing deportation.
However, just two months later, Gibson Dunn reversed its position.
Despite having actively assisted public interest organizations in preparing another lawsuit, the firm declined to officially associate itself with this new legal challenge. Sources familiar with the situation, speaking anonymously to avoid jeopardizing their relationship with the firm, indicated that Gibson Dunn feared drawing the administration’s ire.
Specifically, attorneys from Gibson Dunn were apprehensive about being publicly linked to a case seeking to restore legal counsel for unaccompanied immigrant children. This reluctance is not isolated; other major law firms have similarly avoided immigration-related litigation.
Since March, the Trump administration has issued executive orders targeting numerous large law firms, threatening their ability to represent clients before federal agencies. Many firms have negotiated agreements with the White House to avoid being subjected to such restrictions, while others have mounted legal challenges against these orders.
Although Gibson Dunn has neither been targeted by such executive orders nor reached any agreements with the administration, its hesitation to engage in recent immigration lawsuits highlights a broader trend. Even firms not directly confronted by the administration are steering clear of legal actions that oppose its agenda.
