DOJ Backs Down In Law-Firm War

A set of legal scales on top of law books with a person working in the background

The Justice Department just walked away from defending executive orders that federal judges said punished lawyers for who they represented—raising fresh alarms about how easily government power can be aimed at political enemies.

Story Snapshot

DOJ filed to voluntarily dismiss appeals defending four Trump-era executive orders targeting major law firms, leaving lower-court rulings intact.
Federal judges blocked the orders as unconstitutional, citing problems under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
The targeted firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block—said the dismissals confirm core rule-of-law protections.
Other large firms reportedly avoided being targeted or got orders rescinded by agreeing to provide hundreds of millions in pro bono services.

DOJ Drops Appeals, Making Court Losses Permanent

The U.S. Department of Justice filed paperwork on March 2, 2026, asking the D.C. Circuit to dismiss its own appeals of four lower-court rulings that struck down executive orders aimed at specific law firms. Those rulings blocked the orders from taking effect, and DOJ’s move effectively locks in the firms’ wins without a final appellate fight. Reports note DOJ did not provide a public explanation, despite inquiries about why the government changed course.

The executive orders were signed in March and April 2025 and singled out Perkins Coie, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale), Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block. The orders, as described in coverage, included penalties tied to firms’ access to federal work—such as security clearances and government contracts—based on the firms’ prior legal representations. The administration initially appealed after losing in district court, but the appeals progressed slowly before DOJ moved to end them.

What the Courts Said Was Unconstitutional

Four district judges concluded the firm-wide orders violated constitutional protections, with decisions pointing to the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. The core concern described across reporting was viewpoint retaliation: using federal power to pressure or punish attorneys and institutions for representing “unfavored” clients or taking disfavored legal positions. Those rulings treated the orders as improper government coercion that could chill legal advocacy—especially when sanctions are triggered not by misconduct, but by the choice to represent certain parties.

Judicial language cited in reports was blunt. One judge described the government’s stance as sending “chills,” and another characterized the targeting as a “personal vendetta.” However you read the politics, the legal lesson is straightforward: the Constitution does not allow the executive branch to rewrite the rules for access to federal work based on who a law firm represents. If a government can punish lawyers for their clients, ordinary Americans have less confidence they can get a fair fight in court.

The Law Firms Targeted—and Why They Were in the Crosshairs

Coverage connects the orders to longstanding political flashpoints. Perkins Coie drew attention due to work tied to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Steele dossier. Other firms were linked in reporting to litigation challenging parts of Trump’s agenda, including disputes involving gender dysphoria treatment funding and personnel actions such as inspector general firings. Those contexts matter because they frame why courts saw a constitutional problem: the penalties were tied to advocacy and representation, not neutral procurement standards.

After DOJ filed to drop the appeals, at least two firms publicly welcomed the outcome. WilmerHale called it the “right decision” in defense of the rule of law, while Jenner & Block said the move “permanently confirms” the orders were unconstitutional and emphasized it would advocate “without compromise.” DOJ declined comment in multiple reports. The absence of an explanation leaves the public with a gap: Americans can see the government retreat, but not the reasoning behind the reversal.

The Settlement Contrast: Pro Bono Deals vs. Fighting in Court

The dismissals also reopen debate about how Washington pressure campaigns work in practice. Reporting says nine other firms previously “settled” by offering hundreds of millions in pro bono services, and one account put the total value around $940 million. That contrast—some firms litigating and winning, others negotiating to avoid ongoing conflict—highlights why conservatives should care about process even when the target is an elite institution: government leverage is powerful, and deals struck under pressure can become an informal way to steer private actors.

Going forward, the immediate impact is clear: the four challenged orders never took effect, and the firms keep their access to federal systems and work without the threatened blanket penalties. The longer-term question is how future administrations—Republican or Democrat—try to use contracting, clearances, and regulatory tools to reward allies and punish opponents. Courts acted as a constitutional backstop here, but the episode shows how quickly politics can tempt leaders into using state power in ways that collide with basic civil liberties.