DOJ drops then reverses its fight against law firms that beat Trump in court

In early 2025, President Trump signed executive orders targeting four prominent law firms: Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. The orders stripped security clearances from firm employees, terminated government contracts, and barred firm lawyers from entering federal buildings. The stated justification in each order was explicitly based on the firms' past legal work — not any allegation of current wrongdoing. Perkins Coie had represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign; WilmerHale had employed Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann after the Russia investigation; Jenner & Block had employed Weissmann; Susman Godfrey had represented Dominion Voting Systems in its $787 million defamation settlement against Fox News.

All four firms refused to negotiate and filed suit. Four separate federal district court judges — hearing the cases independently — found the executive orders unconstitutional. Judge BHBeryl Howell ruled the Perkins Coie order was 'an unprecedented attack' on the U.S. judicial system, invoking Shakespeare: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.' Judge John Bates found the Jenner & Block order violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Judge LALoren AliKhan ruled the Susman Godfrey order reflected 'a personal vendetta' and an attempt 'to dictate the positions that law firms may or may not take.' The unanimity across four judges was itself legally significant.

Nine other major firms chose not to fight. Paul Weiss was the first to settle, agreeing to eliminate its DEI programs and provide $40 million in pro bono legal services to Trump-aligned causes — before the executive order targeting Paul Weiss was even formally signed. Skadden agreed to $100 million in pro bono work. At least seven additional firms followed. Combined, firms that negotiated rather than litigated committed nearly $1 billion in free legal services to the Trump administration. By June 2025, reporting showed that 11 client companies — including Oracle, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, and McDonald's — had shifted business toward the fighting firms and away from those that settled.

On the evening of Monday, March 2, the DOJ moved to voluntarily dismiss all four remaining appeals of the lower-court rulings. The four fighting firms publicly celebrated. Jenner & Block said the withdrawal 'makes permanent the rulings of four federal judges that the executive orders targeting law firms were unconstitutional.' Susman Godfrey called it 'a fitting end to its plainly unconstitutional attack on Susman Godfrey and the rule of law.' WilmerHale called the decision 'clearly the right one.' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said the outcome proved 'there is no safety in appeasement.'

By Tuesday morning, March 3, the government had reversed itself. A DOJ motion filed with the 🏛️D.C. Circuit sought to withdraw the voluntary dismissal filed less than 24 hours earlier. The motion, signed by Associate Attorney General SWStanley Woodward, offered no explanation. It said only that it was the 'prerogative' of the government to pursue its appeal regardless of the prior day's filing. The D.C. Circuit had not yet formally granted the dismissal, leaving a procedural window the government exploited to pull its own concession.

The four firms jointly opposed the reversal in a filing with the 🏛️D.C. Circuit. They noted all parties had agreed to the voluntary dismissal and called the government's conduct 'an unexplained about-face.' Their filing stated: 'Under no circumstances should the government's unexplained about-face provide a basis for an extension of its brief.' The episode — concede, celebrate, reverse — left the constitutional questions entirely unresolved and the firms back in the appellate posture they had been in before Monday's filing. The DOJ brief in the ongoing appeal was due by March 6.

The broader pattern the case exposed raised foundational questions about the legal profession and access to justice. As multiple legal commentators noted, the purpose of Trump's original orders was to send a message while extracting pain — and the settlement firms demonstrated that this leverage worked even when the orders themselves were unconstitutional. Nine firms paid nearly $1 billion in legal work to avoid a fight that four firms were winning for free. The Rule of Law Defense Fund called the combined effect a tax on independence: firms that maintained their autonomy from political pressure were punished; firms that surrendered were rewarded.

The First Amendment implications extended beyond the specific firms targeted. Over 500 law firms signed an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie's lawsuit. By June 2025, reporting documented 'anxious clients' leaving the settling firms and moving business to the fighting firms — a market signal that clients valued independence from political pressure. The cases moved constitutional law into new territory: no prior administration had used executive orders to strip a law firm's government contracts and security clearances based solely on the clients the firm chose to represent.