The Department of Justice has moved to dismiss its appeals against four major law firms that successfully challenged President Trump’s executive orders targeting them. The firms are Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey. All four had won rulings in federal court blocking the executive orders, which judges found to be unconstitutional.
What the Rulings Mean
By dropping its appeals, the DOJ has effectively made those rulings permanent. The executive orders had targeted the firms for employing or representing critics of the president. Jenner & Block confirmed in a statement that the dismissal makes permanent the findings of four federal judges that the orders were unconstitutional.
How the Firms Responded
The reaction from the firms was pointed. Susman Godfrey said the government had capitulated, calling it a fitting end to what it described as a plainly unconstitutional attack on the firm and the rule of law. The firm added that it had fought not just for itself but for a Constitution that protects freedoms and a legal profession that depends on equal justice under the law.
The Firms That Settled Instead
Not every firm chose to fight. Trump announced deals with nine other leading law firms. Paul Weiss was the first to reach an agreement, committing to $40 million in pro bono legal work for the administration. The firm argued that settling was a practical decision, saying the cost of fighting could have meant losing clients, revenue and top talent. In total, the firms that settled have committed to almost $1 billion worth of legal work for the president.
Why This Matters to You
This story goes to the heart of how democratic institutions respond to executive power. The legal profession exists to hold governments accountable, protect individual rights and ensure equal justice. When a president targets law firms for representing his critics, it sends a chilling message to lawyers across the country about the risks of taking on cases that challenge those in power.
For everyday people, an independent legal profession is a fundamental safeguard. Without it, access to justice becomes dependent on whether your case is politically convenient. It is worth thinking about: Does settling with the administration for pro bono work set a dangerous precedent for legal independence? What does it say about the state of the rule of law when firms must choose between fighting unconstitutional orders and protecting their business? And how do these events affect the willingness of lawyers to take on future cases against the government?
