In a world where legal firms often shy away from political confrontation, Milbank has taken a stand that could redefine its reputation and influence within the legal community. After initially conceding to President Donald Trump's demands by contributing a hefty $100 million to his pro bono war chest to sidestep a potentially burdensome executive order (EO), Milbank has now pivoted dramatically. The firm has joined a lawsuit challenging some of the president's most controversial actions, signaling a significant shift in its approach.

This lawsuit particularly addresses President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, which have been a point of contention and deemed as an overreach of executive power by many legal experts. Milbank's involvement comes after a successful initial ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which sided with a group of small businesses impacted by these tariffs. The businesses argued that the tariffs exceeded Trump’s presidential authority, a stance that the court upheld.

Neal Katyal, a partner at Milbank and former acting solicitor general, alongside former federal judge Michael McConnell from Wilson Sonsini, has taken up co-counsel roles in this high-profile case. Katyal has publicly criticized the president's actions, underscoring a commitment to uphold the separation of powers as envisioned by the Founders of the United States. "These presidential actions fall on the wrong side of the line," Katyal stated, expressing confidence in restoring the primacy of Congress in such significant matters.

The decision by Milbank to engage in this legal battle not only showcases the firm's legal acumen but also its willingness to uphold democratic principles, even at the risk of presidential displeasure. This move is particularly noteworthy given the atmosphere of intimidation that has permeated the relationship between the Trump administration and various Biglaw firms. Milbank’s actions represent a refreshing departure from the capitulation seen elsewhere in the industry.

For clients and employees at Milbank, this development is likely a source of reassurance. It demonstrates that the firm is not merely an administration's legal facilitator but is prepared to act independently and assertively when fundamental legal and ethical standards are at stake.

This lawsuit and Milbank’s renewed backbone could set a precedent for other firms in Biglaw, challenging them to reconsider their positions and the impact of their legal decisions on broader societal and constitutional issues. As the case progresses, the legal community and observers alike will be watching closely, perhaps witnessing the shaping of a new era in how law firms respond to political pressures and uphold the rule of law.