Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Browse

DOJ Drops Appeals, Ends Defense of Trump Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms

DOJ Drops Appeals, Ends Defense of Trump Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms
View gallery

The Justice Department on Monday abandoned its yearlong effort to defend a series of Donald Trump executive orders that sought to punish four major law firms, telling a federal appeals court it would drop appeals of rulings that had already found the measures unconstitutional.theguardian +1 The move effectively cements victories for Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey, whose lawyers had warned the orders threatened the independence of the legal profession.brennancenter

Trump’s directives, issued in March and April 2025, had ordered agencies to suspend or review security clearances for the firms’ lawyers, restrict their access to federal buildings and reconsider government contracts with their clients, citing the firms’ past work on election, defamation and investigative matters involving the president and his allies.cato +1 Four federal judges in Washington — appointed by presidents of both parties — blocked and then struck down the orders over the course of spring 2025, calling them retaliatory and unconstitutional.houstonpublicmedia +1

How Trump’s Law-Firm Crackdown Unraveled in Court

The first order, signed March 6, 2025, targeted Perkins Coie, a firm long associated with Democratic campaigns; U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell permanently enjoined it on May 2, finding it “violates the First Amendment” and warning it would chill lawyers from taking on disfavored clients.reuters +1 Subsequent orders singled out Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, which had represented Dominion Voting Systems in its $787 million settlement with Fox News, among other matters tied to Trump’s political grievances.cato +1

Judges consistently rejected the administration’s arguments that the measures were grounded in national security concerns or anti-discrimination policy. In the Susman Godfrey case, Judge Loren AliKhan called the order a “shocking abuse of power” and said the framers would have viewed it as unlawful retaliation against protected legal advocacy.houstonpublicmedia By June 2025, the White House was 0-for-4 defending the orders in district court, even as nine other major firms chose not to sue and instead pledged roughly $940 million in pro bono work to causes negotiated with the administration.jurist

Why DOJ Backed Down — and What It Means for Executive Power

On March 2, 2026, facing upcoming briefing deadlines and a skeptical D.C. Circuit panel, the Justice Department filed notices voluntarily dismissing its appeals in all four cases, offering no public explanation beyond the bare procedural step.theguardian +1 The withdrawals leave the district-court opinions in place, a result that one Susman Godfrey statement described as the government having “capitulated” in its “plainly unconstitutional attack … on the rule of law.”thehill Civil-liberties groups, including the ACLU, hailed the decision as confirmation that the orders were an unlawful attempt to punish firms for First Amendment–protected work.wsj

The decisions also add to a growing body of case law limiting presidents’ ability to weaponize access to clearances, buildings and contracts to target specific private entities over their speech or clients. Legal scholars say the strong language in the opinions — drawing analogies to Shakespeare’s “first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” — is likely to be invoked in future fights over executive retaliation against lawyers, media organizations or other perceived enemies.nbcnews +1

The Bigger Picture

The collapse of the law-firm crackdown underscores both the reach and the limits of Trump’s reliance on executive orders in his second term: while the policies forced some large firms into controversial deals and chilled pro bono and civil-rights work across the industry, courts ultimately drew a bright constitutional line against singling out lawyers for whom they represent.brennancenter +1 With the appeals now abandoned, the episode becomes a cautionary precedent for future administrations contemplating punitive orders against private litigants — and a rallying point for a legal profession that, as one judge wrote, was “watching in horror” at the prospect of government power deployed against the lawyers who challenge it.thehill