Washington — The Justice Department moved Monday to drop its legal defense of President Trump’s executive orders that targeted several high-profile law firms, according to court filings.
In papers filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the administration said it would voluntarily dismiss appeals from lower court decisions that found the orders unconstitutional. The measures had singled out Perkins Coie; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale); Susman Godfrey; and Jenner & Block.
While the administration abandoned its appeals in those cases, it also secured hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono commitments from nine other firms that reached deals with the White House to avoid similar directives.
“The government’s decision to dismiss its appeal is clearly the right one,” a WilmerHale spokesperson said. “As we said from the outset, our challenge to the unlawful Executive Order was about defending our clients’ constitutional right to retain the counsel of their choosing and defending the rule of law. We are pleased these foundational principles were vindicated.”
Susman Godfrey said the administration had “capitulated,” ending what the firm called an attack on both itself and the rule of law. “We fought for ourselves, but we fought for bigger things, too: for a Constitution that protects our freedoms; for a legal profession that depends on equal justice under the law; and for the people across this country who refuse to back down in the face of an Administration that seeks to silence and intimidate them — lawyers and non-lawyers alike,” the firm said.
Jenner & Block said the withdrawal makes permanent rulings from four federal judges that the executive orders were unconstitutional and reiterated the firm’s commitment to zealously advocate for clients.
The Justice Department declined to comment.
The cases stem from a series of executive orders Mr. Trump signed in March and April last year that sought to punish law firms for certain hires and legal work. One measure against Paul, Weiss was later rescinded after that firm pledged tens of millions of dollars in pro bono work to support White House initiatives; the directive had specifically criticized work by Mark Pomerantz, who had investigated Trump’s finances for the Manhattan district attorney’s office before Trump became president.
The orders targeted firms’ clients, access to federal buildings and officials, and security clearances held by employees. Perkins Coie was singled out for representing Hillary Clinton in 2016 and for hiring a research firm that retained former British spy Christopher Steele, who produced the so-called Steele dossier. WilmerHale and Jenner & Block had employed lawyers who worked on the Justice Department’s Russia investigation — including Robert Mueller, formerly of WilmerHale, and Andrew Weissmann, a former Jenner lawyer. Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News, which settled for $787 million in 2023.
Some firms had also litigated to block parts of Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda, including attempts to withhold federal funds from medical providers serving transgender minors and the firings of multiple inspectors general.
Each of the four firms sued, and four federal judges ruled overwhelmingly in their favor, finding the executive orders violated the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. None of the orders took effect. A judge ruling for Perkins Coie said the order sent the message that “lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.” In siding with Susman Godfrey, a judge found the government “sought to use its immense power to dictate the positions that law firms may or may not take,” a threat to the foundation of legal representation; Judge Loren AliKhan said the order reflected a “personal vendetta” against the firm.
At Covington & Burling, a lawyer who worked on special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutions of Mr. Trump had his security clearance targeted. Smith’s cases were later dropped after Mr. Trump won reelection.
The executive orders deepened divisions in the legal community, prompting some prominent firms to reach agreements with the White House to avoid sanctions. They were part of a broader campaign in Mr. Trump’s second term that included revoking security clearances and protective details for critics and pursuing indictments against figures such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — prosecutions that in some cases were later dismissed when a judge found the prosecutor improperly appointed.
The Justice Department’s decision to end appeals in the law-firm cases comes as it faces more than 600 lawsuits challenging elements of the administration’s agenda. Government lawyers have declined to defend or appeal several such suits, including one by the American Bar Association after the Justice Department cut grants for programs aiding domestic violence and sexual-assault survivors; a federal judge ruled for the ABA and the administration did not appeal.
The ABA filed a separate challenge to the law-firm executive orders in June, saying the White House “used the vast powers of the Executive Branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like,” in violation of the First Amendment. The Justice Department was scheduled to argue in favor of dismissing the ABA’s suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.