WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is sharply criticizing a judge who halted enforcement of a White House executive order meant to punish a prominent law firm, continuing a pattern of Trump administration attacks on the judiciary over decisions that officials don’t like.

Attorney General Pam Bondi also told federal agencies that they retain the “authority to decide with whom to work” in spite of a court ruling last month that temporarily blocked the administration’s efforts to bar Jenner & Block employees from having access to federal buildings and that directed that federal contracts held by the firm or its clients be reviewed and terminated.

The law firm is among several prominent ones subject in recent weeks to similarly worded executive orders by the Republican president; some, like Jenner & Block, have sued over the orders, and others have reached settlements to avert being sanctioned by the White House. U.S. District Judge John Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, stopped key provisions of the executive order from taking effect last month and is considering a request by the firm to block its enforcement permanently.

In a letter made public late Tuesday, Bondi and White House budget director Russell Vought notified agency heads about the judge’s ruling but also lambasted him for it.

“On March 28, 2025, an unelected district court yet again invaded the policy-making and free speech prerogatives of the executive branch, including by requiring the Attorney General and the OMB Director to pen a letter to the head of every executive department and agency,” the two officials wrote. “Local district judges lack this authority, and the Supreme Court should swiftly constrain these judges’ blatant overstepping of the judicial power.”

The letter was filed in federal court in Washington as part of a report on the status of the lawsuit brought by Jenner & Block.

“Of course, as noted in the court order, agencies are permitted to carry on their ordinary course of business which carries with it the authority to decide with whom to work,” it adds.

It later adds: “As it remains the Executive Branch’s position that Executive Order 14246 was necessary policy the government reserves the right to take all necessary and legal actions regarding ‘lawfare,’ national security concerns, and discriminatory practices involving Jenner & Block.”

That assertion could place the administration in conflict with the order from Bates, which directed the Trump administration to inform federal agencies to disregard broad swaths of its executive order. A separate provision of the order, mandating the suspension of active security clearances of employees at the firm, remains unaffected by the judge’s ruling.

Jenner & Block lawsuit, as well as WilmerHale, another firm targeted by an executive order, asked federal judges on Tuesday to permanently block enforcement of the orders against them.

The executive order against Jenner & Block stemmed at least in par from the fact the firm once employed Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer who served on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that investigated Trump during his first term in office over potential connections between his 2016 campaign and Russia. Weissmann, a frequent public target of Trump’s ire, left the firm several years ago.

Mueller has retired from WilmerHale, but a White House executive order targeting that firm mentioned him as well as another retired partner and a current partner who all served on Mueller’s team.

Besides Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, other firms targeted by executive order include Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling.

Last month, after being confronted with a similar order, Paul Weiss struck a deal with the White House that resulted in the order being rescinded. Three other firms — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, as well as Millbank and Willkie, Farr & Gallagher — have reached settlements with the Trump administration before they could be subject to an order.