DOJ Drops Defense of Trump-Era Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms

DOJ Abandons Appeals Against Law Firms

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on Monday, March 2, 2026, its decision to drop its legal defense of executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump that had targeted four prominent law firms. The DOJ filed papers with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, voluntarily dismissing its appeals of lower court decisions that found the executive orders unconstitutional. This move effectively ends the administration's attempt to revive sanctions against the firms.

Background of the Executive Orders

Former President Trump issued a series of executive orders in March and April 2025, aiming to punish several high-profile law firms. These orders imposed various sanctions, including revoking security clearances, restricting access to federal buildings, and barring the firms from undertaking government-related legal work. The Trump administration cited reasons such as the firms' past legal work for political rivals, their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, and their employment of individuals who had investigated the former president.

The four law firms that challenged these orders in court were:

• Perkins Coie: Targeted for its role in hiring Fusion GPS and its work with the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
• Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale): Singled out due to its association with former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team, as well as its DEI policies.
• Susman Godfrey: Accused of 'weaponizing' the legal system and notably represented Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation lawsuit.
• Jenner & Block: Targeted for employing Andrew Weissman, a former deputy to Robert Mueller, and for the causes it champions.

Between May and June 2025, federal judges sided with these firms, striking down the executive orders. The rulings determined that the orders violated the firms' constitutional rights, including free speech, due process, and the right to select counsel without fear of retribution. The Trump administration had previously indicated its intention to appeal these decisions and faced a deadline this week to outline its arguments.

Reactions from the Legal Community

The DOJ's decision has been met with approval from the targeted law firms. WilmerHale stated that 'the government's decision to dismiss its appeal is clearly the right one,' emphasizing that their challenge was about 'defending our clients' constitutional right to retain the counsel of their choosing and defending the rule of law.'

Susman Godfrey declared that 'the government has capitulated, which is a fitting end to its plainly unconstitutional attack on Susman Godfrey and the rule of law.' Jenner & Block noted that the withdrawal of appeals 'makes permanent the rulings of four federal judges that the executive orders targeting law firms... were unconstitutional.' Perkins Coie highlighted that its lower court victory protected 'core constitutional freedoms such as free speech, due process and the right to select counsel without fear of retribution.'

This development also brings into focus other law firms, including Paul, Weiss, A&O Shearman, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which had opted to make deals with the Trump administration to avoid similar sanctions. These agreements reportedly involved commitments of significant pro bono legal services, some totaling nearly $1 billion, and in some cases, promises not to engage in certain DEI programs. The DOJ's dismissal of appeals underscores the differing approaches taken by firms in response to the executive orders.