A section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall. Photo: Chess Ocampo/Shutterstock.com

Big Law litigators from Washington, D.C., and New York working pro bono were behind the Texas court ruling last week that cut off funding for the Trump Administration's border wall.

Attorneys from Willkie Farr & Gallagher and O'Melveny & Myers donated their work on the case alongside lawyers from nonprofits Protect Democracy and Checks and Balances and think tank Niskanen Center to represent the plaintiffs, El Paso County and the Border Network for Human Rights.

On Oct. 11, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found that President Donald Trump violated federal law by declaring a national emergency in order to use more funds on the border wall than Congress had appropriated.

Next, plaintiffs must propose terms for an injunction to stop the government from funding border walls that Congress has refused to authorize.

The case was fascinating, said Richard Mancino, partner in Willkie Farr & Gallagher in New York.

"It was a matter of public service and seeing a situation where at least in my view of what was going on, the administration was doing things that were not within its power," he said. "I felt those are compelling concerns and the sorts of things that from my personal perspective as a lawyer, something I should be eager to get involved in."

Mancino and his colleagues—partner Shaimaa Hussein and associates Samantha Prince, Jordan Reisch, Michaela Connolly and Madeleine Tayer—volunteered with Protect Democracy's team from the beginning. They assisted with legal research, gathered the facts for the complaints in the case and helped draft other pleadings.

"We've been part of a very effective and collaborative team from the very beginning," said Mancino, a commercial litigator. "We're really proud we had whatever small role we did in getting the district court to rule in our clients' favor."

O'Melveny & Myers jumped into the case to prepare briefing and argue the matter at the summary judgment hearing. Associate Ephraim McDowell, who's been with the firm for about a year, said his firm supports pro bono and encourages its attorneys to get involved. The camaraderie among the pro bono legal team on this case was amazing and rewarding, he said, noting he was honored that his co-counsel trusted a young attorney with part of the summary judgement argument on the merits arguments.

"It's a deeply fascinating case. There are lots of very complex legal issues regarding jurisdiction, standing and all the merits issues involved complex statutory interpretation and constitutional interpretation issues that you dream about working on going into private practice," said McDowell, who worked with O'Melveny & Myers partner Anton Metlitsky of New York on the case. "This is one of the most interesting cases I've had an opportunity to work on."

Epstein Becker & Green member Stuart Gerson of Washington, D.C., another pro bono attorney on the case, was one of the litigators who argued for the plaintiffs at the summary judgment hearing regarding standing issues.

Gerson, a former acting U.S. attorney general said in a statement, "As someone who served in government under a Republican administration, I never imagined a Republican president would attempt to expand executive power this far by overriding the appropriations power that belongs to Congress. I hope today's ruling will prompt Republicans in Washington to recommit to the checks and balances that have defined our Republic and protected our freedom."

Read the ruling: