WilmerHale’s complaint is a powerful and sophisticated defense of core constitutional principles and the legal profession’s independence. It argues with clarity and forcefulness that President Trump’s executive order is an act of retaliation against protected legal expression. By grounding its claims in the First Amendment and invoking the right to counsel, WilmerHale positions itself not merely as a firm defending its interests but as a guardian of the adversarial system itself. The complaint is also rich with historical references, beginning with John Adams’s defense of the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre, and it draws on solid precedents that elevate legal advocacy to the level of constitutionally protected speech. Beyond its immediate purpose, I hope the complaint also has a galvanizing effect on the legal profession. By standing up to what it calls an unconstitutional “vendetta,” the firm sends a clear message that lawyers must be free to represent controversial clients without fear of government reprisal. The suit should embolden other firms to challenge political interference, reinforcing the principle that legal advocacy is not a partisan act but a professional duty. If successful, the outcome could help protect attorneys and firms from similar forms of political punishment. In doing all this, the firm has helped stand up for the independence of the bar and the broader legal infrastructure on which a functioning democracy depends.