|
 |
Today, the Trump administration delivered a loss in court to itself. It abandoned its defense of Trump’s executive orders sanctioning several law firms. You likely remember these executive orders, which we discussed in March of 2025, in “Big Law Fights Back.”
At the time, I introduced the issue like this: “Unless you’ve practiced in Big Law, they’re probably just names: Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss. They are the law firms Donald Trump has attacked, using the power of the presidency in a venal form of personal revenge, by way of Executive Orders (EOs) that are so harsh clients have left firms, and some are rumored to be in dire straits. Yesterday it was WilmerHale, targeted explicitly because they hired two lawyers—the EO called it “welcomed” them—who had worked on the Mueller Investigation, which concluded Trump had engaged in behavior that could be prosecuted, but declined to do so because of a DOJ policy prohibition of indicting a sitting president.”
 |
It was one of the earliest incarnations of Trump’s revenge agenda in action, Trump, deploying the power of the presidency against entire firms based on imaginary grievances against a few people there—or in some cases, long since departed.
Some firms caved. But not all. WilmerHale put out a statement saying, “Our firm has a long-standing tradition of representing a wide range of clients, including in matters against administrations of both parties.” It applauded Bob Mueller’s “long, distinguished career in public service, from his time as a Marine Corps officer in Vietnam to his leadership of the FBI in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks.”
Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit against Trump in mid-March despite reports that it had some initial difficulty finding a firm willing to take it on as a client—that’s how much of a shock Trump’s orders delivered. But the firms recovered. Jenner & Block filed a lawsuit and issued a statement: “The order threatens not only Jenner, but also its clients and the legal system itself. Our Constitution, top to bottom, forbids attempts by the government to punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice and the people with whom they associate.” WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey filed lawsuits as well.
But nine large firms bent the knee, agreeing to the administration’s extortionate demand that they provide free legal services for some of the president’s favored causes. Included among the nine were firms that had litigated on behalf of democracy during the first Trump administration. Now, they sidelined themselves.
Why go after Big Law? We can see it more clearly now, as District Judges and the rest of the federal court system increasingly fulfill the checks and balances role the Constitution assigns to them. Courts can’t act on their own, they need lawyers to bring them cases. During the first Trump administration, that happened regularly. The new administration wanted to put a stop to it.
Jenner & Block, asking for a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the EO against them, made the point that “These orders send a clear message to the legal profession: Cease certain representations adverse to the government and renounce the Administration’s critics—or suffer the consequences.” The courts can only be effective at preventing Trump from usurping power that does not belong in the hands of the presidency if the law firms bring them cases. Trump could simultaneously indulge petty grievances and try to hamstring the courts.
The EOs signified that someone in Trump’s orbit understood this vulnerability: The rule of law can hold him accountable. That’s exactly what we’ve seen in the months since in many ways. In this particular regard, every law firm that challenged an executive order scored early wins in court.
This morning, the Erin Mulvaney and C. Ryan Barber at the Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department plans to “abandon its defense of the president’s executive orders sanctioning several law firms.” Until now, the administration had been pursuing the cases it suffered early losses in.
Perhaps someone in the Solicitor General’s office pointed out that the cases were inevitably doomed to failure and suggested dropping them while the news cycle is focused on Iran. After the administration’s loss in the tariffs case, the president may have a newfound concern over the sting of losses like this. So far, four different federal judges have held the orders are unconstitutional. While one of those judges was appointed by Barack Obama and another by Joe Biden, two of them were appointed by George W. Bush— bad math for the administration.
As for the firms that capitulated early on, they too appear to have miscalculated. Neera Tanden, who served in the White House during the Biden administration, explained the cost on Twitter:
 |
Former Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, who is now the Director of the Center for Law and Public Trust at NYU Law School, explained it like this: “The law firms that capitulated to blatantly unconstitutional orders out of fear and for increased profit undermined the rule of law and the legal profession in this country. This episode will be remembered as demonstrating the difference between institutions that had the courage to uphold the Constitution and fight bullying, and those that didn’t and gained nothing. Let’s hope that media companies, universities, and other organizations pay heed.”
 |
Standing up to the bully is the right response. Yes, it requires some initial courage. But the bully ultimately backs down. And every time he does, we win. Today, we won again, thanks to some lawyers who were willing to take the risk and be brave.
Thank you for being part of Civil Discourse and for supporting my work. If you aren’t already, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For $6 a month or $50 a year you can invest in serious analysis, independent journalism, and be part of a community that refuses to look away. Your support makes my work here possible.
We’re in this together,
Joyce