WASHINGTON — In a stunning legal “about-face,” the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) notified a federal appeals court on Tuesday that it will continue its defense of President Trump’s executive orders targeting four major law firms, rescinding a dismissal request filed just hours earlier.
The reversal marks a significant pivot in the administration’s aggressive legal strategy to penalize firms linked to the President’s political rivals. The four firms involved—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—had successfully challenged the orders in lower courts, where judges ruled the directives unconstitutional.
A Rapid Reversal in the D.C. Circuit
The DOJ’s latest filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeks to withdraw a previous motion to voluntarily dismiss the government’s appeals. On Monday evening, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward had signaled the administration would stop defending the orders. By Tuesday afternoon, that position was scrapped.
“Yesterday evening, the Administration told the Court that it gave up and wouldn’t even try to defend its unconstitutional executive orders. Today, it reversed course,” the law firm Susman Godfrey said in a statement. “Regardless, Susman Godfrey will defend itself and the rule of law—without equivocation.”
In its motion, the DOJ asserted that pursuing the appeal is its “prerogative,” regardless of the opposition from the targeted firms, who have labeled the move an “unexplained” shift in policy.
The Scope of the Executive Orders
The legal battle centers on a series of directives issued during the early months of President Trump’s second term. These orders sought to impose unprecedented sanctions on specific legal institutions based on their past clients and personnel. The penalties included:
- Contractual Blacklisting: Targeting firm clients who hold government contracts.
- Access Restrictions: Barring firm employees from federal buildings and meetings with officials.
- Security Clearance Revocation: Suspending federal security clearances held by attorneys at the firms.
Why These Four Firms?
The administration’s focus on these specific firms appears rooted in their involvement in high-profile litigation and investigations involving the President:
- WilmerHale & Jenner & Block: Both firms hired attorneys who served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team during the investigation into 2016 Russian election interference.
- Susman Godfrey: Represented Dominion Voting Systems in its landmark defamation suit against Fox News, which resulted in a $787 million settlement.
- Perkins Coie: Provided legal representation to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and was involved in the retention of the firm that produced the “Steele Dossier.”
Constitutional Challenges and “Pay-to-Play” Allegations
At the trial-court level, four different federal judges ruled that the executive orders violated the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments. The courts found that the measures constituted a form of government retaliation and interfered with the right to counsel.
While these four firms chose to litigate, others reached settlements. Paul, Weiss saw its directive rescinded after agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono work for administration-backed causes. Nine other firms reportedly entered similar “free legal service” agreements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars to avoid sanctions.
What Follows This Legal Pivot
The DOJ’s decision to reinstate the appeals comes just days before written arguments were due. Because the appeals court had not yet formally signed off on the initial motion to dismiss, the government was able to reclaim its standing in the case.
The White House and DOJ have declined to comment on the internal reasoning behind the 24-hour turnaround. Legal analysts suggest the reversal may indicate a last-minute intervention by senior administration officials determined to see the executive orders upheld as a matter of presidential authority.
The D.C. Circuit is now expected to set a new schedule for oral arguments, which will serve as a critical test of the executive branch’s power to penalize private legal entities for their professional associations.
