Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
The US government has dropped its legal effort to enforce punitive executive orders targeting top law firms, abandoning a fight that rocked Big Law after Donald Trump’s return to the presidency.
The White House on Monday terminated its appeal efforts in four cases involving Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, according to court filings. All four firms successfully challenged Trump after he issued what could have been damaging executive orders against them.
Abandoning the cases marks a dramatic U-turn by the government in a tussle that raised existential questions in the legal community. It could prove embarrassing for the large law firms that chose to give in to the administration rather than fight back, or to pre-emptively strike deals in a bid to avoid being targeted.
Susman Godfrey said: “The government has capitulated, which is a fitting end to its plainly unconstitutional attack on Susman Godfrey and the rule of law.”
The withdrawal “makes permanent the rulings of four federal judges” that Trump’s executive orders “were unconstitutional”, Jenner & Block said.
The lower court rulings protect “core constitutional freedoms such as free speech, due process and the right to select counsel without fear of retribution,” Perkins Coie said.
WilmerHale added that its challenge against Trump’s directive aimed to defend its clients’ “constitutional right to retain the counsel of their choosing and defending the rule of law. We are pleased these foundational principles were vindicated.”
Paul Weiss struck a deal with Trump in March when it was targeted by the administration. Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, A&O Shearman and Willkie Farr & Gallagher negotiated deals when no executive order had been issued against them. Such deals typically included pledging pro bono work for causes the administration supports.
The White House referred questions to the Department of Justice, which declined to comment.
The executive orders would have suspended security clearances that allow lawyers to review sensitive materials or scrutinise some contracts with the government, but the four firms successfully sued the administration to block them from taking effect.
Trump last year issued executive orders targeting a series of law firms as part of a broader crackdown against perceived opponents in Big Law, including groups that employed lawyers who worked on investigations targeting him during his first presidential term.
The government faced a bruising legal defeat last month, when the US Supreme Court ruled Trump’s signature tariff policy illegal, arguing he exceeded his authority.
The law firms that struck deals with the administration have faced a fierce backlash, with critics questioning their ability to represent clients against the US government in the future.
They have also faced scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers, who warned their agreements with the White House might be illegal.
In her ruling blocking the Perkins Coie executive order last year, Washington DC Judge Beryl Howell wrote some clients might be wary of using law firms that struck deals with the administration since they might fear it would stop them from receiving “vigorous and zealous representation”.
She praised firms that challenged the orders, writing in her ruling that “those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written”.
Trump’s executive orders marked an unprecedented attack against elite US law firms that, detractors say, violated constitutional protections, including free speech.
Perkins Coie did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Read the full article here
