The Justice Department on Monday moved to abandon its legal defense of President Trump’s executive orders that singled out several major law firms, filing papers to voluntarily dismiss appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The administration’s action ends its effort to overturn lower-court rulings that declared the directives unconstitutional.
The orders targeted Perkins Coie; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale); Susman Godfrey; and Jenner & Block. While the government withdrew the appeals in those matters, the White House also secured commitments from nine other firms to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono legal work as part of agreements to avoid similar sanctions. A separate directive aimed at Paul, Weiss was rescinded last year after that firm pledged tens of millions in pro bono services; that order had criticized work by Mark Pomerantz, who had investigated Mr. Trump’s finances for the Manhattan district attorney’s office before Mr. Trump became president.
WilmerHale said the government’s decision to drop the appeal was the right outcome and reiterated that its challenge sought to defend clients’ constitutional right to choose counsel and to uphold the rule of law. Susman Godfrey said the administration had effectively capitulated and framed the litigation as a defense not only of the firm but of constitutional freedoms and the independence of the legal profession. Jenner & Block noted the withdrawal leaves intact rulings from federal judges that the orders were unconstitutional and reaffirmed the firm’s commitment to vigorous client advocacy. The Justice Department declined to comment.
The contested executive orders, issued in March and April of last year, sought to impose penalties on firms based on certain hires and legal work, restricting clients’ access to federal buildings and officials and targeting employees’ security clearances. Perkins Coie was singled out for its role representing Hillary Clinton in 2016 and for hiring a research firm associated with Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer behind the so-called Steele dossier. WilmerHale and Jenner had employed attorneys who worked on the Justice Department’s Russia inquiry, including Robert Mueller, formerly of WilmerHale, and Andrew Weissmann, formerly of Jenner. Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation case against Fox News, which settled in 2023.
Several of the targeted firms had also opposed other Trump administration initiatives, including attempts to cut federal funding to medical providers serving transgender minors and challenges to the firings of multiple inspectors general.
Each of the four named firms sued, and four federal judges ruled in their favor, finding the executive orders violated the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. None of the directives took effect. In written opinions, judges said the orders sent a chilling message that lawyers must conform to political preferences or risk punishment and that the government sought to use its power to dictate law firms’ positions—a threat to the foundation of legal representation. One judge characterized the measure aimed at Susman Godfrey as reflecting a personal vendetta.
Separately, a Covington & Burling lawyer who worked with special counsel Jack Smith on prosecutions of Mr. Trump had his security clearance targeted under the broader campaign; those prosecutions were later dropped after Mr. Trump won reelection.
The law-firm directives were part of a wider pattern in Mr. Trump’s second term that included revoking security clearances and protective details for critics and pursuing criminal cases against figures such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—prosecutions that in some instances were later dismissed when judges found issues with how the prosecutors were appointed.
The Justice Department’s retreat on these appeals comes as the administration faces more than 600 lawsuits challenging elements of its agenda. Government lawyers in recent months have declined to defend or appeal multiple suits, including a case brought by the American Bar Association after the department cut grants for programs assisting survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault; a federal judge ruled for the ABA and the administration did not appeal.
The ABA has also brought a separate challenge to the law-firm executive orders, arguing the White House used the power of the executive branch to coerce lawyers and firms to abandon clients, causes, and positions the President opposes, 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.