Trump’s About-Face in Law Firm Fights Casts Pall Over ABA Suit

Justice Department lawyers are heading to court today to defend President Donald Trump’s attacks on law firms after the administration backtracked on a move to drop out of those fights.

DOJ wants a judge to throw out an American Bar Association lawsuit challenging what the group calls Trump’s “law firm intimidation policy.” The suit stems from a series of executive orders that targeted certain firms last year, and deals other firms made with the White House to avoid similar fates.

The hearing lands after a dizzying three-day stretch in cases involving the law firm orders. DOJ on Tuesday walked back a move to drop its appeals of four separate court rulings striking down Trump’s orders. The department on Monday asked a federal appeals court to dismiss the appeals, only to change its mind about 16 hours later.

The ABA in its suit against the Trump administration says the orders—against law firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—have created “a chill over the whole of the legal profession.” The organization alleged the moves are part of a “deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers,” which has prompted some unnamed firms to rethink the cases and clients they take on.

DOJ in a motion to dismiss the ABA’s suit said the group wants to hobble Trump in issuing future executive orders against law firms. The 150-year-old professional organization doesn’t have legal standing to challenge orders yet to be issued or those already rolled out against specific firms, DOJ argued in its December court filing.

“What the ABA coins as the Law Firm Intimidation Policy is nothing more than a convenient label to lump together the previous EOs and any future ones so they can challenge them all in a single stroke,” the department said.

The ABA and the Justice Department declined to comment.

MAGA v. ABA

The ABA’s suit, filed in June in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, marked an escalation in the group’s skirmishes with the Trump administration. Administration officials have slammed the ABA as a liberal advocacy tool, while the group steps up its criticism of Trump’s attacks on the rule of law.

The ABA last year laid off one-third of its workforce after the administration cut $69 million of its grant funding. The group is suing the administration in another case challenging an additional $3.2 million in grant cuts.

A Labor Department official last month banned agency attorneys from participating in their official capacities at ABA events, citing the organization’s “radical ideological positions.” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in April 2025 issued a similar ban for DOJ employees.

Shortly after joining the Justice Department, Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened the ABA’s law school accreditation powers over its mandate for law schools. Texas and Florida are among states that have since moved to limit those powers.

The ABA in today’s hearing will be represented by lawyers from Susman Godfrey, one of the four law firms that won court rulings striking down Trump’s executive orders against them. Susman is known for representing Dominion Voting Systems Inc. in a blockbuster defamation lawsuit against Fox Corp. over claims related to the 2016 White House election. The case ended with the media company agreeing to pay a $787.5 million settlement.

The case is American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, D.D.C., 6/16/25