Trump Rattles Top Law Firms Before Bowing Out of Court Fight

President Donald Trump is walking away from a fight against law firms, but not before shaking the legal industry with threats that have proved effective outside of the courtroom.

The Justice Department on Monday moved to withdraw its appeals of court rulings blocking Trump’s executive orders against four law firms. The appeals were seen as long shots after federal judges struck down the orders—targeting firms over ties to Trump’s perceived enemies—as unconstitutional in separate rulings last year.

Still, the attacks had powerful law firms reeling. Nine top firms pledged $940 million in free legal services in deals with the White House to avoid similar orders and resolve federal probes into some of their diversity recruiting programs. Others, including some that were not targeted, have taken a more cautious approach to clients and cases in order to avoid Trump’s wrath.

“There are some firms that are just not willing to take on that risk,” said Rebecca Roiphe, a former Manhattan prosecutor.

The diversity investigations, which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also dropped in the face of a lawsuit, had a similar impact. Several firms quickly pulled back their DEI efforts in the wake of the probes.

DOJ’s decision ends the fight over executive orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. For others, it “gives a little more breathing room,” said Cari Brunelle, an advisor to law firm leaders. “But the past year has created so much uncertainty and so many questions that it’s going to take a while for folks to feel comfortable again,” she said.

‘The Government Has Capitulated’

The four law firms were quick to claim victory—for themselves and for the rule of law—after DOJ bowed out of the appeals. Supporters hailed the firms for refusing to back down in the face of pressure from the White House.

“The Government has capitulated, which is a fitting end to its plainly unconstitutional attack,” a spokesperson for Susman Godfrey said via email. “In doing so, it has abandoned any attempt to defend the indefensible executive order against our firm.”

Trump began his war on law firms roughly one year ago, first in a memo targeting Covington & Burling for its ties to special prosecutor Jack Smith and then in executive orders against five other firms. The orders revoked lawyers’ security clearances, blocked their access to federal buildings, and threatened their clients’ government contracts.

Wall Street’s Paul Weiss was the only firm hit with an order that reached a deal with Trump. The firm pledged $40 million in free legal services on shared causes with the White House in exchange for the order being scuttled. Eight other firms later used the template to reach similar agreements.

“This is a huge win for the law firms with the courage to stand up for their rights,” said Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School. “It is a reminder that it is much better to stand up to a bully making illegal demands than to comply in advance out of fear of what the bully will do.”

The Oversight Project, a conservative advocacy group spun off from the Heritage Foundation, was among those who cheered Trump’s jabs at the firms.

“The country long had a tradition of advocates who served clients regardless of political ideology,” said Samuel Dewey, an Oversight Project attorney. “We’ve seen that system systematically destroyed in pursuit of what the Oversight Project views is a weaponization of law firms towards—particularly in Big Law—liberal causes,” he said.

Dewey, whose group sought to engage firms that made deals for pro bono work, said the orders had little effect.

“If you’re not going to defend these orders, you want to move on, fine, but the administration should reissue executive orders that deal with the problem more broadly from a systemic level,” Dewey said.

‘Hell of a Case’

DOJ’s withdrawal signals that the department expected to lose the appeals, according to some attorneys tracking the cases.

“By abandoning the D.C. Circuit appeals, the Department of Justice is effectively acknowledging that President Trump’s executive orders targeting entire law firms were illegal,” said Abbe Lowell, the veteran litigator representing government officials and others in court fights with Trump.

Federal judges slammed Trump’s orders as retribution campaigns designed to inflict pain on the president’s perceived enemies. Richard Lawson, the Justice Department attorney who led its defense in the cases, often struggled to give details about the bases for the orders and their impact. Lawson later left DOJ for the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute.

“I suppose from his point of view, it was less painful to fold now than after a loss in the circuit,” Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said of Trump.

DOJ lawyers handling the appeals would have been in a tough spot, according to Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which advocates for free speech on college campuses.

“At some point it gets very difficult to show up and do that work, to defend what seems like wanton disregard of civil liberties,” said Creeley. “This is a hell of a case. I don’t know how you stand up and make arguments in good faith.”

What Lies Ahead

DOJ’s retreat does not mean that the Trump administration has given up on using pressure tactics to get what it wants, said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at libertarian think-tank Cato Institute. Olson pointed to the president’s move to blacklist AI company Anthropic after a dispute over the Defense Department’s use of its tools.

“We are now coming off another controversy that threatens destruction of an important institution because of this kind of grudge wielding and penalty scoring,” Olson said.

It also doesn’t mean the Trump administration is finished with Big Law.

In January, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson sent letters to more than 40 law firms warning that their participation in a diversity certification program could amount to “anti-competitive collusion.” A non-profit group said it would pause the program less than two weeks later.

For now, the four firms that fought Trump should enjoy their victory lap, NYU’s Gillers said.

“They stood up to the bully to protect legal values, to protect the rule of law, and they won,” he said. “They won without having to concede anything at all or promising anything at all.”