The upcoming 2024 United States presidential election is set to have significant ramifications not only for Washington but also for international relations and civil rights in various communities. Advocacy organizations and smaller legal practices are expressing increasing concern that large law firms, often referred to as 'Big Law', may retreat from vital civil rights cases in response to pressures exerted by the Trump administration.

In recent months, the Trump administration has systematically targeted perceived adversaries within the legal community. Federal agencies have been instructed to suspend security clearances and review existing contracts with prominent law firms such as WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Paul, Weiss. In a more specific directive, an executive order was issued against Covington & Burling, which aimed to restrict its operational scope further.

Some firms have chosen to challenge these actions, while others, like the prestigious law firm Paul, Weiss, have opted for a different route by negotiating settlements that include pro bono commitments. This strategy of capitulation has caused anxiety among other firms, leading to fears that they too may face similar repercussions should they refuse to comply with the administration's directives. Such a retreat from civil rights advocacy by major law firms would be disastrous for non-profit organizations and advocacy groups that work closely with marginalized communities and heavily rely on the resources and expertise of these large legal entities.

Recently, LGBT+ protesters gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Brasília, Brazil, to denounce the Trump administration's actions against minority rights. These protests underscore the international ramifications of domestic policy decisions as activists mobilize globally against perceived injustices. In another instance, a pro-Palestinian rally was held in New York City in support of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder whose residency was threatened by the government.

Legal experts, including Jessie Weber, managing partner at Brown Goldstein & Levy, a mid-sized law firm recognized for its strong civil rights practice, voiced their concerns. “If Big Law is unwilling to take those cases on, that does leave a huge gap,” she stated. “We have capacity limitations... I am concerned about there not being enough attorneys who can really take these matters on.”

Shannon Minter, the legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which advocates for LGBT rights, echoed these sentiments. He warned that the administration's tactics could severely harm his organization, which operates with a small team of fewer than half a dozen attorneys and heavily depends on the pro bono work provided by larger law firms. “It would also send a terrible message to courts and to the public that we don’t have the support of the mainstream legal community,” Minter added, illustrating the potential chilling effect of such a retreat.

The implications of a retreat by Big Law extend beyond the civil rights sector, potentially undermining advocacy efforts on a range of pressing issues, including criminal justice reform, immigration policies, and reproductive rights. The Trump administration has been criticized for its aggressive actions that some argue violate established civil rights protections. For instance, in January, the Justice Department directed its attorneys to cease civil rights litigation, while also moving to deport students on green cards involved in pro-Palestinian protests and restricting gender transition healthcare services.

There have been disturbing reports from the ground, including instances where police and public services have forcibly dismantled homeless encampments in Washington, D.C., following public complaints from President Trump regarding visible homelessness in the city. The administration's hardline stance has raised alarms about the treatment of vulnerable populations.

Michael Langley, executive director of the Florida Justice Institute, a non-profit law firm committed to civil rights advocacy, stated, “If large law firms stopped participating in such cases en masse, unquestionably civil rights would suffer in this country.” He suggested this outcome might be part of the administration's broader strategy. The historical contributions of Big Law to civil rights cases cannot be understated; firms like Paul, Weiss have been involved in landmark litigation addressing issues such as state abortion laws and racial segregation, while others like Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins have fought to protect voter rights and advocate for asylum seekers.

However, there are indications that this retreat may already be in motion. A senior attorney based in Washington disclosed that they were currently evaluating a case concerning the “appalling treatment” of immigrants after witnessing a large law firm sever its partnership with a non-profit due to fears of retribution.

As the 2024 election approaches, the ramifications of a decline in civil rights advocacy could be profound. Recent moves by the Trump administration, including directives regarding the treatment of transgender individuals in correctional facilities, highlight the urgent need for robust legal challenges. Advocacy groups, alongside supportive legal firms, managed to file a constitutional challenge against a government order mandating that transgender women be housed in male prisons and restricting their access to necessary medical care—an act that many believe would subject them to increased risk of violence and abuse.

The landscape remains uncertain regarding how many mainstream law firms will shy away from engaging in vital civil rights cases. Thankfully, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has filed over 20 lawsuits against the government since Trump resumed office, is resolute in its mission. Ben Winzer, a lawyer with the ACLU, asserted, “We are not going to slow down.” The ACLU, with a robust team of 500 attorneys, often litigates cases independently but relies on the support of larger law firms when necessary.

Winzer expressed optimism regarding the legal community's resilience, stating, “I just cannot believe that a few orders targeting a few law firms are going to sideline the entire profession.” He pointed out that a federal judge ruled against Trump’s directive targeting Perkins Coie, declaring it illegal and halting its enforcement.

Langley aptly summarized the current state of affairs, stating that the Trump administration's rhetoric against the legal profession and civil rights serves as a stark reminder of the critical role that the legal system plays in fostering positive change within communities. “No one is above the law,” he emphasized. “No one should be beneath it either.”