President Donald Trump’s campaign of retribution against elite law firms that have resisted his efforts to subjugate them is, so far, not going well.

On Tuesday, a judge struck down his executive order seeking to crush WilmerHale, one of several firms the president says have wronged him or have done work for his political opponents. The decision was the latest in an unbroken string of victories for the handful of firms that have sued to stop him.

Judge Richard J. Leon of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the order was unconstitutional and “must be struck down in its entirety,” adding that Trump appeared intent on driving the firm to the bargaining table by imposing “a kitchen sink of severe sanctions.”

The ruling seemed to validate the strategy, embraced by a minority of firms, of fighting the administration instead of caving to a pressure campaign and making deals with Trump to avoid persecution. Judges have rejected similarly punitive executive orders aimed at the firms Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, and lawyers representing Susman Godfrey asked a fourth judge this month to issue a final decision in their case.

Leon said that despite his decisive ruling, the firm had already suffered because of Trump’s actions. Even though he had temporarily blocked the order one day after the president signed it, he noted that existing clients had already started “curtailing their relationships with WilmerHale, and new clients are taking their business elsewhere.”

“The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The founding fathers knew this!” Leon wrote in a 73-page opinion laced with more than two dozen exclamation points.

“Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence,” he wrote. “Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no executive order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights.”

So far, federal judges have steadfastly rejected what they have described as an effort by the White House to subjugate the nation’s top law firms.

All through March, Trump issued half a dozen orders individually demonizing firms that had worked for prominent Democrats or aided in efforts to investigate his ties to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.

In each case, the orders leveraged the force of the federal government to give the threats teeth, including by having those firms’ lawyers barred from federal buildings and stripped of their security clearances.

The order targeting WilmerHale was especially pointed, given the firm’s longtime association with Robert Mueller. He returned there upon retiring from his role as the special counsel overseeing the investigation into Moscow’s election interference that boosted Trump against his rival in the 2016 race, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Mueller left the firm in 2021.

Along with other firms such as Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey, WilmerHale sued to stop the executive orders from taking effect, asking Leon to proceed directly to a decision with no trial, as the only question at issue was whether or not a president could take such an extraordinary action.

At the same time, other white shoe firms such as Paul Weiss, Skadden and Latham & Watkins agreed to take on hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of pro bono legal work on behalf of causes Trump favors, avoiding similarly calibrated executive orders.

In his opinion, Leon colorfully dismissed assertions by the government that its targeting of WilmerHale was something routine and apolitical, brushing off the notion with a brusque “please — that dog won’t hunt!”

“Taken together, the provisions constitute a staggering punishment for the firm’s protected speech,” he wrote. “The order is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm’s ability to effectively represent its clients!”

Earlier this month, while Leon was deliberating on his decision, the firm wrote to inform the court that the government had proceeded to suspend two of its attorneys’ security clearances.

During a hearing in April, Richard Lawson, a lawyer for the government, told Leon that the lawsuit was an effort to improperly constrain Trump’s ability to “investigate an area of concern,” despite the appearance that it infringed on the law firm’s constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.