Big Chicago Law Firms Sitting Out Challenge to Trump's Order blackballing law firm - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

Steven Strahler had an interesting article in Crains that dug into which Chicago firms were willing to sign onto an amicus brief challenging the Trump administration’s decision to blackball law firms that helped his political opponents. By way of background, Trump recently signed an executive order declaring that Perkins Coie (a large Chicago firm that represented Hilary Clinton) can no longer represent the federal government. Trump didn’t stop there though. He went further and actually barred Perkins Coie from entering federal premises – presumably federal courthouses. Yep, you read that right. The President of the United States actually signed an executive order barring a law firm from entering federal courtrooms. Because that law firm represented someone he does not like. The executive order is galactically foolish and childish and not likely to withstand judicial scrutiny. A federal judge has already entered a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the order.

Recently a large group of law firms across the country signed onto an amicus brief seeking to make that temporary restraining order permanent. Strahler’s article asked what Chicago law firms have signed on. And the answer is hardly encouraging. While a number of medium-sized firms including Munger Tolles & Olson, Miller Shakman, Levine & Feldman and several prominent personal injury firms have signed on, there are some notable absences. Most of the large Chicago firms(save Jenner & Block – also hit by a similar executive order from Trump) have NOT signed on. Specifically Kirkland & Ellis, Sidley Austin, Mayer Brown and Winston & Strawn have not signed the brief.

Stephan Blandin, a principal at Romanucci & Blandin, one of the personal injury firms that signed the brief, was dismayed by the apparent reluctance of the big firms to get off the sidelines. “The silence of the big firms is palpable” he noted. “This is constitutional crisis like I have not seen in my lifetime and people are just looking the other way and going about their business.”

Nathan Elmer, a lawyer who worked on the brief, was more pointed when asked about the failure of big firms to get involved. “I think it’s a misplaced sense of values and lack of courage that made the difference.”

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.