Trump
Retreats on Actions against Four Big Law Firms Who Successfully Fought against
His Executive Orders
The move amounts to a surrender in a
clash that has led many law firms to submit to the president rather than face
the threat of his executive orders.
1.
White House Abandons Legal Fight:
The U.S. Department of Justice informed the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit that it would no longer pursue appeals
defending executive orders against major law firms.
2.
Major Legal Setback for President Trump:
The move marks a significant acknowledgment by Donald Trump’s
administration that the executive orders were unlikely to withstand judicial
scrutiny.
3.
Executive Orders Targeted Specific Firms:
Orders barred certain firms from government business and threatened their
clients’ federal contracts, creating widespread concern in the legal industry.
4.
Four Firms Successfully Challenged Orders:
o
Perkins Coie
o
WilmerHale
o
Jenner & Block
o
Susman Godfrey
These firms won favorable district court rulings.
5.
Nine Firms Opted for Deals:
Notably, Paul Weiss negotiated with the administration rather than
contest the order, drawing criticism from legal circles and Democrats.
6.
Judicial Rebuke:
Judge Beryl Howell described the executive order against Perkins Coie as “an unprecedented attack” on constitutional principles.
7.
Origins of the Dispute:
o
Covington & Burling was
targeted for advising Special Counsel Jack Smith.
o
Perkins Coie was linked
to Democratic campaign work and the Russia investigation dossier.
8.
EEOC Scrutiny Also Fizzled:
A related effort involving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
to review firms’ hiring practices has reportedly been closed without
substantive findings.
9.
Strategic Pressure Tactics:
The administration’s approach reflected a broader pattern of aggressive
executive action, applying pressure before courts could respond.
10.
Continued Muscular Approach Toward Businesses:
Separately, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated AI firm Anthropic as a
national security supply-chain risk, signaling
ongoing assertive regulatory tactics.
Overall
Implication:
The withdrawal of appeals signals a notable legal
retreat by the Trump administration in its confrontation with major law firms.
While the executive orders failed judicial scrutiny, the episode highlights an
increasingly confrontational relationship between the White House, the legal
profession, and corporate America.
The
Trump administration on Monday (02.03.2026) abandoned its attempts to impose potentially
crippling executive orders against law firms that refused to capitulate to the president,
walking away from its appeal of victories the firms had won against the White House.
With
a brief due this week, Justice Department lawyers told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia that they were no longer interested in pursuing the
cases and were voluntarily asking the court to dismiss them.
The
decision is the White House’s most significant acknowledgment that the executive
orders cannot be successfully defended in court. The move is particularly striking
given that some firms opted to reach deals in a bid to head off executive orders
that President Trump’s Justice Department said it would no longer stand behind.
The
battle over the executive orders had roiled the legal establishment and led many
firms to submit to Mr. Trump rather than face the existential threat his directives
represented. The orders barred the firms from government business and suggested
that their clients could lose government contracts, spurring widespread panic in
the legal profession.
Four
firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale,
Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey — fought the orders, quickly receiving favorable rulings from district court judges. Nine others struck
deals with Mr. Trump, most notably Paul Weiss, drawing sharp criticism.
Already,
the Justice Department acknowledged in court that a parallel effort to use the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to scrutinize the hiring practices of some
of the country’s biggest law firms amounted to very little. The commission has said
that most of the firms did not provide any of the requested information and that
it now considers the matter closed.
Mr.
Trump’s attacks on law firms were one of the early gambits in the shock-and-awe
retribution campaign he mounted upon returning to the White House last year. In
February 2025, he issued executive orders against two firms associated with his
perceived enemies.
The
first firm Mr. Trump targeted, Covington & Burling, had given free legal advice
to Jack Smith, who as special counsel led investigations into Mr. Trump. The second,
Perkins Coie, did work for Democrats during the 2016 presidential
campaign and had hired a research firm that ultimately led to the creation of an
unsubstantiated dossier about the ties between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia.
The
judge overseeing Perkins Coie’s case, Beryl Howell, said
the executive order “sends little chills down my spine,” later writing that the
administration had sent a clear message, “Lawyers must stick to the party line,
or else.” The orders, she wrote, were “an unprecedented attack” on foundational
constitutional principles.
Regardless,
Mr. Trump signed a third executive order against the law firm Paul Weiss, which
employed a litigator who as a prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney’s
office led an investigation into Mr. Trump. The firm was widely expected to fight
because its chairman, Brad S. Karp, had helped galvanize the legal world to stand
up to Mr. Trump during his first term.
But
instead, Paul Weiss entered into negotiations with the White House.
Paul
Weiss and other firms were particularly vulnerable to the orders because of a basic
structural shift. While it was known for its litigation attorneys — the fast-talking,
brief-writing lawyers who appear in court — the firm increasingly relied on highly
paid corporate lawyers, who often bring in the most money. The firm’s litigators
determined the executive order was illegal, but its top corporate rainmaker, Scott
A. Barshay, said the firm could not even be perceived
as adverse to Mr. Trump because it would hurt their business and clients.
Mr.
Karp, fearing Mr. Barshay would leave the firm and take
many partners and clients with him, went along with his desires, striking a deal
in which the firm essentially agreed to represent clients no matter their political
beliefs and do pro bono legal work for largely uncontroversial causes.
But
the deal led to an uproar inside the firm, the legal community and among Democrats,
who considered it a capitulation. And it appeared to embolden Mr. Trump, who went
on to make similar deals with eight other firms.
In
June, the administration appealed Judge Howell’s ruling, and the four cases were
consolidated to be heard as one by a panel of appeals judges in the District of
Columbia. Last month, the court ordered the Justice Department to file its appeal
by Friday.
The
Justice Department’s surrender is the latest example of the White House pushing
the limits of the law, benefiting from the lag time between the use of its power
and the courts’ response. The administration has deployed the tactic in its efforts
to keep its chosen U.S. attorneys in place and the prosecution of some of Mr. Trump’s
adversaries. In some instances, even when the administration has walked away from
its initial legal position, it has still been able to impose its will.
Despite
its legal losses, the administration continues to take an unusually muscular approach
with businesses. Last week, after talks between the Trump administration and
the artificial intelligence firm Anthropic blew up, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth formally designated the company a “supply-chain risk
to national security,” meaning that no contractor or supplier with military ties
can do business with the firm.
The
legal designation is highly unusual for an American company. Anthropic has vowed
to fight it in court.