Search Articles
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Trump administration on Tuesday asked the D.C. Circuit to ignore its recent motion indicating it would no longer defend a set of executive orders last year sanctioning major law firms that federal judges resoundingly rejected as unconstitutional.
On Monday, the Justice Department filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of four preliminary injunctions entered in favor of firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey.
In a one-page filing, the Justice Department argued there was no reason the appellate court should deny the government’s motion to continue its defense, as the court had not granted its earlier motion to dismiss.
According to the motion, the government reached out to the law firms to ask their position earlier on Tuesday.
“Plaintiffs-appellees oppose the government’s unexplained request to withdraw yesterday’s voluntary dismissal, to which all parties had agreed,” the firms stated. “Under no circumstances should the government’s unexplained about-face provide a basis for an extension of its brief.”
The reversal comes as the Justice Department is facing a Friday deadline for its appeal brief, which would be the first time the government has explained its rationale behind the appeals.
Starting Feb. 25, 2025, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders and presidential memorandums against so-called “Big Law” firms — also including Paul Weiss and Covington & Burling — directing agency heads to review attorneys’ security clearances and any government contracts, as well as barring attorneys from government buildings, which would have included the federal courthouse in Washington.
In the four executive orders, Trump fixated on the firms’ representation of certain Democrats and prior employment of certain employees he viewed as political enemies, such as former special counsel Robert Mueller and members of his team, as well as Andrew Weissmann and Marc Elias. Mueller retired from WilmerHale, and Elias left Perkins Coie in 2021.
For WilmerHale, Trump cited the firm’s representation of the Democratic National Committee, the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris campaigns and eight inspectors general who were suddenly terminated by Trump.
In Perkins Coie’s case, Trump described the firm as “dishonest and dangerous” and highlighted its connection to the 2016 “Steele Dossier,” which detailed claims the Trump campaign had ties to Russia. The claims were investigated by the FBI and found to be unsubstantiated.
Susman Godfrey was targeted, in part, for its representation of Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation case against Fox News and clients in similar defamation cases against Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell, Patrick Byrne and One America News Network.
Senior U.S. District Judges Beryl Howell, Richard Leon, John Bates and U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan each rejected Trump’s executive orders as clear viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment and struck down the executive orders in their entirety.
Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his May 27 opinion that the executive order could only be construed as unconstitutional, and to “rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the founding fathers!”
“The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting,” Leon wrote. “The founding fathers knew this!”
Former Justice Department Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle defended the orders in court, arguing the president has the sole constitutional authority to determine whether an individual or entity poses a national security risk.
He further said the orders were based on the law firms’ conduct, not their views, and said the president had the prerogative to deem an entity “untrustworthy” to handle the nation’s secrets.
Early last year, in an apparent attempt to stave off similar such sanctions, nine major law firms made deals with the president to provide $1 billion in legal services for initiatives backed by the administration. The firms were Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Willkie Farr, Latham & Watkins, Milbank, Cadwalader, Allen & Overy, Kirkland & Ellis and Simpson Thacher.
Following the Justice Department’s Monday filing, Jenner & Block issued a statement welcoming the decision, which it subsequently took down in response to the government’s reversal. The firm did not respond to a request for an updated comment.
Brian Hauss, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said the Trump administration’s “flip-flopping is making a joke of the Justice Department.”
“But the plain truth is that these executive orders are totally indefensible, as four federal courts have already recognized,” Hauss added. “We all have an obligation to speak out against this gross abuse of power.”
The White House declined to comment. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Follow @Ryan_KnappySubscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.