Introduction 

As we watch our federal government ban or disavow Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) programs, we are seeing varying responses from the private sector, and in particular, law firms.[1] The purported intent in cutting DEI programs is to promote based on merit—to not consider one’s gender, race, or identity. But as DEI programs are dismantled, we must consider the impact on our legal community. Can we continue to encourage and celebrate diversity and inclusion among lawyers in our profession? Is there an impending threat to our Diversity Section of the Idaho State Bar? Are DEI positions within law firms at risk? Will certain CLE topics administered by our Idaho State Bar be prevented? At this point, the questions appear more prevalent than the answers.

While there are legal limits to the government’s ability to regulate our private associations, we must nevertheless recognize the trickle-down effect of what the government can legally regulate, and how the private sector may follow suit. This article will conder the various ways in which government interference may impact our Bar.

Initial Federal Action: Government Action Limiting DEI

On the federal level, the Trump Administration has issued a slew of executive orders targeting DEI programs in federal agencies, public education, military, and even private sector.  The first such Executive Order on January 20, 2025 (“Exec. Order 14151”) sought to ban federal DEI programs.[2] Exec. Order 14151 states that the previous administration “forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (“DEI”) into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government,” and “Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources on making America great.”[3]  Exec. Order 14151 further directed the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), along with assistance of the Attorney General, to “coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (“DEIA”) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal government.”[4] 

In a separate Executive Order issued on January 21, 2025 (Exec. Order 14173), President Trump ordered “all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities…” and “combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”[5]

These two initial Executive Orders sought to reach the private sector through the federal government’s ability to regulate federal contractors and recipients of federal funding.[6] The Executive Orders direct the Attorney General to identify private sector companies and work “to advance in the private sector the policy of individual initiative, excellence, and hard work.”[7] The Attorney General must report on “measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.”[8]  The Attorney General report must include a plan to deter programs or principles that constitute illegal discrimination or preference within State and local bar and medical associations, and institutes of higher education with endowments over $1 billion.[9]

Significantly, neither Executive Order defined any of the relevant terms, such as “DEI,” “equity-related,” or “illegal discrimination or preferences.”[10]

On January 27, 2025, the OMB issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency [activities] that may be implicated by the executive orders….”[11] The memorandum defined federal assistance in the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, and insurance.[12]

Federal Action Against Law Firms

After the two initial Executive Orders banning DEI in the federal government and programs receiving federal assistance, the Trump Administration began specifically targeting DEI programs within private law firms.  On March 6, 2025, Executive Order (“Exec. Order 14230”) was directed towards “unlawful” DEI programs within Perkins Coie. Exec. Order 14230 specifically directed against Perkins Coie alleges that

Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.[13]

As part of its mandate, Exec. Order 14230 tasks the Attorney General to investigate practices of “large” law firms who do business with government entities.   Exec. Order 14230 directed the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to “review the practices of representative large, influential, or industry leading law firms for consistency with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” and determine “whether large law firms: reserve certain positions, such as summer associate spots, for individuals of preferred races; promote individuals on a discriminatory basis; permit client access on a discriminatory basis; or provide access to events, trainings, or travel on a discriminatory basis.”[14]

On March 17, 2025, the EEOC chair Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms requesting information about their DEI related employment programs. “The EEOC is prepared to root out discrimination, anywhere it may rear its heading, including our nation’s elite law firms,” Lucas said.[15]  Those law firms that received the letter included Latham & Watkins; McDermott Will & Emery; Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom;  Kirkland & Ellis; WilmerHale; Cooley; and others.

Subsequent Executive Orders have been issued targeting Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Paul Weiss, and Susman Godfrey, and while these Executive Orders seemingly target the firms for their political affiliations[16], each Order also references Exec. Order 14230, stating “Racial Discrimination. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the action authorized by section 4 of Executive Order 14230 of March 6, 2025 (Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP).”[17]  

Idaho Government Action Against DEI

While we have not seen Idaho government target law firm DEI programs, our public education has been subjected to government regulation related to its DEI programs. In December 2024, the Idaho State Board of Education passed a December 18, 2024 Resolution (“Resolution”) that limits DEI programs at state public colleges and  requires institutions to fully implement the Resolution by June 30, 2025.[18] The Resolution mandated institutions “shall not establish or maintain a central office, policy, procedure, or initiative that promotes DEI ideology,” and institutions “shall ensure that no student resource or student success center serves students based on DEI ideology.”[19] Amongst the affected institutions are Boise State University, University of Idaho, Idaho State University, and Lewis-Clark State College.

On February 21, 2025, Idaho Senate Bill 1123 proposed legislation that would enact this Resolution into Idaho law.[20] The language of the bill closely mirrored the language of the Resolution and was passed in the Senate, but it did not advance past committee in the House. [21]

Reactions from the Legal Profession

We have seen our profession react to government intervention in varying ways.  Notably, legal bar associations, both at the national and state levels, have long championed DEI efforts. The American Bar Association advertises its goal to “to eliminate bias and enhance diversity in our Association, legal profession, and justice system.”[22] Under the umbrella of the American Bar Association is the National Association of Attorneys with Disabilities, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the National Association of Women Lawyers, the National LGBT Bar Association, and the National Bar Association.  These associations use DEI programs to support initiatives such as minority mentorship programs, diversity scholarships, and inclusive recruitment practices.[23]

Idaho’s State Bar Association’s own Diversity Section remains active, with a mission to promote “the education, training and networking of diversity practitioners.” The stated purpose of the Diversity Section is  to “foster diversity within the Idaho State Bar and Judiciary and to promote the Bar’s professional development to serve the interests of a diverse public.”[24] The bylaws provide that the Diversity Section promotes the “recruitment and retention of diverse persons within the Idaho State Bar and its leadership.” Further, the Section offers a “Love the Law!” program to expose Idaho high school, college, and university students from diverse, minority, and low-income backgrounds to the legal profession, and awards a “Justice for All” Award “to highlight the progress and impact an individual has made in bringing opportunities of the law to bear in the areas of discrimination and diversity, including but not limited to race, ethnic background, and national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and sexual preference, poverty, age, and family status.”[25]

The legal profession’s response to banning of DEI programs remains fluid. as bar associations at the national and state level navigate the legal and ethical implication of the federal DEI ban.  In the wake of the Executive Orders, the American Bar Association voted to suspend its DEI standard for law schools while the ABA reviews revisions to the rule. [26] But on March 3, 2025, the ABA issued a statement that the  language of Exec. Order 14230 is precisely the type of effort “to undermine the courts and the profession,” to “remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not.”[27]

Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey filed federal lawsuits against the Trump Administration in part due to the administration attacking their DEI programs. [28]  As of the date this article was submitted for printing, judges for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia have: held the Perkins Coie Executive Order invalid; granted Jenner & Block’s motion for summary judgment; “struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional” the Executive Order as to WilmerHale; and granted Susman Godfrey’s motion for temporary restraining order.[29]

While these four law firms pursued litigation, other big law firms have elected to reach a settlement agreement and agreed to contribute legal services to mutually agreed upon projects.; for example, Skadden has committed to what Trump referred to as merit-based hiring and retention of employees[30], while Paul Weiss “acknowledged the wrongdoing of its former partner Mark Pomerantz” and agreed to “dedicate[] the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during [President Trump’s] term in office to support causes including assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism; and other similar initiatives.”[31]It has also not gone unnoticed that AmLaw 100 law firms have removed DEI language and links from their websites.[32]

Our Idaho State Bar Association thus far has not made any public statement as to its position on DEI programs in our legal community. The reach of local or federal government on bar associations remains to be seen.  The Idaho State Bar does not receive federal funding, so it seems unlikely that the Executive Orders have true implications on our ability to promote diversity and associate as diverse members within the Bar.  But the Idaho State Bar operates under the authority delegated by the Idaho Supreme Court through its rulemaking power and under the statutory authority of the legislature.  Title 3 of the Idaho Code provides laws related to the practice of law, and the creation of the Board of Commissioners of the Idaho State Bar.   While there is no current statute that specifically allows for government control or monitoring of the ability of Bar associations, Section 3-418 arguably gives broad authority to the legislature to regulate the Bar governance.  

 3-418.  Administration of justice — Investigations, study and recommendations of board. The governor, Supreme Court, or the legislature of the state of Idaho, may request of the board an investigation and study of and recommendations upon any matter relating to the courts of this state, practice and procedure therein, practice of the law, and the administration of justice in Idaho, and thereupon it shall be the duty of said board to cause such investigation and study to be made, reported to an annual meeting of the Idaho State Bar, and, after the action of said meeting thereon, to report the same to the officer or body making the request. The board may, without such request, cause an investigation and study upon the same subject-matters, and after a report thereon to an annual meeting of the Idaho State Bar, report the same and the action of said meeting thereon to the governor, Supreme Court, or the legislature of the state of Idaho. 

The Idaho Women Lawyers Association is intentionally unaffiliated with the Idaho State Bar.  When it was formed in 1986, it recognized itself as an organization that  is a non-profit that promotes and advances diversity through the promotion of equal rights and opportunities for women in the legal profession.[33]

Legal Efforts to Stop Government Intervention

The legal authority of the Executive Orders on the private sector through its regulatory powers  remains in limbo as courts throughout the nation address lawsuits against the federal government. In a lawsuit filed by Perkins Coie, it argued that Exec. Order 14230 violated First and Fifth Amendment rights.[34] A judge initially granted a temporary injunction due to its punitive nature.[35] Numerous amicus briefs were filed by 361 Law Professors, 376 former judges, 518 law firms, 21 litigation firms, 334 solo & small firm lawyers, legal ethics professors, bar associations, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, former government officials, 23 NGOs, 61 Media Organizations and Press Freedom Advocates, and legal advocacy organizations.[36] As of May 2, 2025, the Court granted Perkins Coie’s summary judgment motion in its entirety and permanently blocked Exec. Order 14230, explaining that the “instant case presents an unprecedented attack” on foundational principles including an informed, independent judiciary and bar.[37] Jenner & Block’s lawsuit alleged violations of the First Amendment, violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, violations of the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and ultra vires presidential action and violation of the separation of powers, on the grounds that the Executive Order impairs the firm’s ability to practice law.[38] The Court permanently enjoined Exec. Order 14246 from taking effect, deeming it “null and void” and “unlawful because it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution”.[39]

WilmerHale’s lawsuit similarly alleged that the Executive Order violated at least eleven different constitutional principles, including multiple violations of the First Amendment, an ultra vires Presidential Action, multiple violations of the Fifth Amendment, violation of the Sixth Amendment, and violation of The Spending Power of the United States Constitution.[40] WilmerHale successfully obtained a Temporary Restraining Order on March 28, 2025, and via Memorandum Opinion issued on May 28, 2025, the Court “struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional” Exec. Order 14250.[41] By its Complaint, Susman Godfrey argues that the Executive Order targeting it is unconstitutional, retaliatory, and violates the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as separation-of-powers principles on the grounds it causes irreparable harm to the firm and its clients by restricting access to federal buildings, suspending security clearances, and interfering with government contracts.[42] On April 15, 2025, the Court granted Susman Godfrey’s motion for temporary restraining order and as of the date this article was sent to print, Susman Godfrey is awaiting the Court’s ruling on its motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that Exec. Order 14263 is unlawful and that Defendants are permanently enjoined from implementing or enforcing the Order.[43]

There are also several legal efforts to block Executive Orders 14151 and 14173.  A coalition of nonprofit organizations filed a lawsuit, National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget arguing that the OMB’s memorandum, which directed federal agencies to pause funding activities related to DEI programs, violated the Administrative Procedure Act.[44]

The plaintiffs in National Council of Nonprofits argue that the federal grants and funding implicated by the OMB memorandum are crucial for the operations and programs of many nonprofits. They claim that even a temporary pause in funding could significantly impact the services provided to communities, potentially depriving them of life-saving services. The lawsuit contends that the OMB’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, and that they unlawfully restricted the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.[45] Immediately after the lawsuit was filed, the OMB directive was rescinded, and the defendants sought dismissal of the lawsuit based on mootness.  On February 3, 2025, the district judge issued a TRO prohibiting the defendants from implementing or trying to reinstate the disbursement of funds for open federal funding awards.[46] The Court issued a preliminary injunction on February 25, 2025 that used similar language to that contained in the TRO, and Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify the scope of the preliminary injunction on March 4, 2025, which the Court denied on March 14, 2025; at the time of publication of this Article, litigation remains ongoing.[47]  

Moreover, in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, a Maryland district court granted a preliminary injunction on three specific provisions in Exec. Order 14151 and 14173 based on vagueness grounds.[48] The plaintiffs, who are organizations representing higher education diversity officers, filed a lawsuit arguing that Exec. Orders 14151 and 14173 are unconstitutionally vague under the First Amendment and violate the Commerce clause.  As argued by the plaintiffs in briefing, the “private entities around the country have started to censor themselves or face the immediate or imminent loss of federal funds or other enforcement actions” by removing from their websites any mention of “equity” or “DEI.” [49] The government, at the time of publication of this Article, is appealing the decision granting the Preliminary Injunction.[50]

Impact on our Legal Profession and Community

The banning of DEI programs in our law schools and the threat to our Bar association may affect how law firms approach diversity hiring, mentorship, and retention initiatives.  Minority law candidates may feel less inclined to attend law school if they are not provided with a support system through DEI groups on campus or DEI initiatives. But what cannot be denied is that a less diverse legal community will negatively impact our profession. As individuals, we often look to those who have had shared or similar life experiences for advice and counsel.  With a less diverse workforce, we may end up reducing our ability to adequately provide legal service to all Idahoans. Minority communities may feel that their unique legal issues cannot be represented or adequately advocated. We must consider these negative consequences as we navigate our response to federal and state regulation.

Christina M. Hesse is a partner at Duke Evett, PLLC, where she specializes in medical and professional malpractice defense and business/commercial litigation. Prior to joining Duke Evett, Christina worked at firms in Boston and Boise and was the Chief Legal Officer for a Boise-based software-as-a-service startup company. Christina is a Board Member of Idaho Women Lawyers and of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Ada County, and is the Secretary for the U.S. Law Network Medical Practice Group Leadership Team. While not working, Christina enjoys spending time in the great outdoors with her husband and two young sons, watching Carolina Tarheel basketball, and aspiring to return to her days of marathon running.

Emma C. Nowacki is a partner at Duke Evett, PLLC, where she specializes in professional malpractice and employment law. She also regularly defends lawyers in ethics complaints before the Idaho State Bar. Emma has tried several cases to verdict in state and federal court. Prior to joining Duke Evett, Emma worked as a Deputy Attorney General in the Civil Litigation Division of the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Idaho.  Emma began her career as a prosecutor in Chicago in the domestic violence division. Emma is a board member of Idaho Association of Defense Counsel and an active member of Idaho Women Lawyers. In her spare time, Emma enjoys reading, trail running, and bike rides with her son and husband.

[1] Exec. Order No. 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633, 8634-35 (Jan. 21, 2025); Exec. Order No. 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339, 8339 (Jan. 29, 2025).

[2] Exec. Order No. 14151.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Exec. Order No. 14173.

[6] See Exec. Order 14151, Exec Order 14173.

[7] See Exec. Order 14173.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Exec. Order 14151, §§ 1-2; Exec. Order 14173, §§ 1.

[11] Memorandum from the Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs (Jan. 27, 2025), available at https://perma.cc/69QB-VFG8. 

[12] Id. ¶ 18; see 2 C.F.R. § 200.1.  See Nat’l Council of Nonprofits v. OMB, Civil Action No. 25 – 239 (LLA), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17662, at *1-2 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2025) 

[13] Id.

[14] See Exec Order 14230.

[15] See Press Release, U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas Sends Letters to 20 Law Firms Requesting Information About DEI (Mar. 13, 2025), available at https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-acting-chair-andrea-lucas-sends-letters-20-law-firms-requesting-information-about-dei#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%93%20Today%2C%20U.S.%20Equal%20Employment,(DEI)%20related%20employment%20practices.

[16]See Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey, The White House (Apr. 9, 2025) (“Susman spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.  Susman also funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology, and it supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race. Susman itself engages in unlawful discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race.  For example, Susman administers a program where it offers financial awards and employment opportunities only to ‘students of color.’ My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process.”); Addressing Risks from WilmerHale, § 1, The White House (Mar. 27, 2025) (“WilmerHale engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race, . . . furthers the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote. . . . WilmerHale is also bent on employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice.  For example, WilmerHale rewarded Robert Mueller and his colleagues — Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s “top aide” and “closest associate,” and James Quarles — by welcoming them to the firm after they wielded the power of the Federal Government to lead one of the most partisan investigations in American history.  Mueller’s investigation epitomizes the weaponization of government. . . .”) ; Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block, § 1, The White House (Mar. 25, 2025) (“Jenner was ‘thrilled’ to re-hire the unethical Andrew Weissmann after his time engaging in partisan prosecution as part of Robert Mueller’s entirely unjustified investigation.  Andrew Weissmann’s career has been rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power, including devastating tens of thousands of American families who worked for the now defunct Arthur Andersen LLP, only to have his unlawfully aggressive prosecution overturned by the Supreme Court.  The numerous reports of Weissmann’s dishonesty, including pursuit of nonexistent crimes, bribery to foreign nationals, and overt demand that the Federal Government pursue a political agenda against me, is a concerning indictment of Jenner’s values and priorities.”); Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss, The White House (Mar. 14, 2025); Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP, The White House (Mar. 6, 2025); Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts, The White House (Feb. 25, 2025).

[17] See id.

[18] Idaho State Board of Education, Board Resolution on DEI Ideology in Higher Education (Dec. 2024), available at  https://boardofed.idaho.gov/resources/board-resolution-on-dei-ideology-in-higher-education/.

[19] Idaho State Board of Education, Board Resolution on DEI Ideology in Higher Education (Dec. 2024), available at  https://boardofed.idaho.gov/resources/board-resolution-on-dei-ideology-in-higher-education/.

[20] S. 1123, 68th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess., (Idaho 2005).

[21] S. 1123, 68th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess., (Idaho 2005).

[22] American Bar Association, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Center, available at https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/; see also Press Release, American Bar Association, The ABA Rejects Efforts to Undermine the Courts and the Legal Profession (Mar. 3, 2025),  available at https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/03/aba-rejects-efforts-to-undermine-courts-and-legal-profession/.

[23] See American Bar Association, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion  Center, available at https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/.

[24] Idaho State Bar, Diversity Section By-Laws, available at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/By-Laws-DIV-March-2019.pdf.

[25] Idaho State Bar, Diversity Section, https://isb.idaho.gov/member-services/practice-sections/div/ (last visited Apr. 24, 2025).

[26] Michael Dorgan, American Bar Association Votes to Stop Enforcing EDI Standard for Law Schools, Fox News (Feb. 22, 2025),https://www.foxnews.com/us/american-bar-association-votes-stop-enforcing-dei-standard-law-schools

[27] Press Release, American Bar Association, The ABA Rejects Efforts to Undermine the Courts and the Legal Profession” (Mar. 3, 2025),  available at https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/03/aba-rejects-efforts-to-undermine-courts-and-legal-profession/; Press Release, American Bar Association, Bar organizations’ statement in support of the rule of law (Mar. 26, 2025), available at https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/03/bar-organizations-statement-in-support-of-rule-of-law/.

[28] See Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et al., 1:25-cv-1107 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 2025); Jenner & Block LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 1:25-cv-00916 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2025); Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 1:25-cv-00916 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2025); Perkins Coie LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46423, at *2-3 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2025)..

[29] See Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 1:25-cv-00916 (D.D.C. May 27, 2025); Jenner & Block LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 1:25-cv-00916 (D.D.C. May 23, 2025); Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et al., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73780 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 2025); Perkins Coie LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46423, at *2-3 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2025).

[30] David Thomas, Mike Scarcella, & Sara Merken, Trump Settles with Skadden While Two Law Firms Sue Over Executive Orders, Reuters (2025), available at https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-settles-with-skadden-while-two-law-firms-sue-over-executive-orders/ar-AA1BS4x1?ocid=TobArticle.

[31] See Exec. Order No. 14244, 90 Fed. Reg. 13685 (Mar. 26, 2025).

[32] See, e.g., Habiba Cullen-Jafar, Avigail Adcox, Big Law Firms Quietly Update Diversity Language, as Deadline Passes to Disclose Data, Law.com (Apr. 16, 2025) (“at least seven firms that received the EEOC’s letter — including Debevoise & Plimpton; Ropes & Gray; Sidley Austin; Reed Smith; White & Case; Goodwin Procter; and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius — have quietly made changes to their webpages on diversity, equity and inclusion commitments and firm programming, appearing to reduce their risk of an extensive investigation with the EEOC”), available at https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2025/04/16/big-law-firms-quietly-update-diversity-language-as-deadline-passes-to-disclose-data-/;  Kristen Parisi, DEI tracker: Several law firms retreat from DEI following the Trump administration’s threats, HR Brew (Apr. 2, 2025) (“Just two weeks ago, for example, 12 of the 15 biggest US law firms by revenue had publicly available information on their websites touting their commitment to DEI. Now, half of those 12 have reversed course in an apparent response to a Mar. 17 letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) acting chair, Andrea Lucas. . . . While some of the firms, including A&O Shearman and Hogan Lovells, rebranded their DEI programs, others scrubbed their sites of their diversity messaging.”), available at https://www.hr-brew.com/stories/2025/04/02/dei-tracker-several-law-firms-retreat-from-dei-following-the-trump-administration-s-threats; Meghan Tribe, DLA Piper Disbands Minority Employee Groups After Trump Probes, Bloomberg Law (Mar. 19, 2025) (“Americas chair Frank Ryan said Tuesday the firm “will evolve from our previous diversity and inclusion initiatives” and will “discontinue resource groups based on demographic categories, cease participation in certain external surveys, and take other steps to remain compliant with the law.”), available at https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/dla-piper-disbands-minority-employee-groups-after-trump-probes.

[33] Idaho Women Lawyers, https://idahowomenlawyers.com/about/.

[34] Perkins Coie LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 2025 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 89439 at *5-6 (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2025).

[35] Perkins Coie LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46423, at *2-3 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2025).

[36] See generally Filings & Milestones, Perkins Coie, available at https://www.perkinscoiefacts.com/filings.

[37] Id. (linking to Memorandum Opinion by Judge Beryl A. Howell, May 2, 2025).

[38] Jenner & Block LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 1:25-cv-00916 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2025).

[39]  Jenner & Block LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 1:25-cv-00916 (D.D.C. May 23, 2025).

[40] Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 1:25-cv-00916 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2025).

[41] Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. United States DOJ, et al., 1:25-cv-00916 (D.D.C. May 27, 2025).

[42] Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive of the President, No. 1:25-cv-01107 (D.D.C. Apr. 9, 2025).

[43] Id. at Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief, filed May 12, 2025.

[44] National Council of Nonprofits v. OMB, Civil Action No. 25 – 239 (LLA), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33750, at *53 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 2025).

[45] Id. 

[46] National Council of Nonprofits v. OMB, Civil Action No. 25 – 239 (LLA), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33750, at *53 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 2025).

[47] Id.

[48] National Ass’n of Diversity Officers in Higher Educ. v. Trump, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31747

[49] 2025 US Dist Ct. Motions LEXIS 40209.

[50] See National Ass’n of Diversity Officer s in Higher Educ. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-0333-ABA, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36956, at *15 (D. Md. Mar. 3, 2025)(denying Government’s motion to stay injunction pending appeal).