The Justice Department has moved to abandon its appeals in a series of cases that invalidated President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at several major law firms from New York, Washington State, and Massachusetts, according to multiple media reports.
The decision closes the door on one of the administration’s earliest and most controversial initiatives after Trump returned to office in 2025, an effort critics and judges alike described as an assault on the independence of the legal profession.
The executive orders were issued shortly after Trump began his second term. They targeted prominent firms accused of employing attorneys connected to past prosecutions and investigations involving the president.
The orders also alleged that certain firms maintained “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion policies. In practical terms, the measures sought to restrict the firms’ ability to do business with the federal government and threatened their broader operations.
Federal district courts swiftly intervened. Judges struck down each of the orders, finding them unlawful and unconstitutional. Now, with the Justice Department dropping its appeals, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.
Four firms, Susman Godfrey; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr; Perkins Coie; and Jenner & Block, challenged the orders in court and prevailed. Other firms initially reached agreements with the administration in an effort to avoid being targeted. Those arrangements, however, reportedly came at a cost. Some firms that chose to cooperate faced internal dissent, staff departures and reputational harm.
The court opinions were unusually forceful in their language.
In a ruling blocking the order against Susman Godfrey, Judge Lori AliKhan of the D.C. Circuit Court wrote that the directive “threatens the independence of the bar – a necessity for the rule of law.” She concluded that the order went beyond violating statutes and the Constitution, striking at foundational legal principles.
Judge Richard Leon, in invalidating the order directed at WilmerHale, warned that accepting such executive authority would betray the intentions of the nation’s founders. He wrote that the order effectively declared that firms taking on causes disfavored by the president would face punishment.
“The government’s decision to dismiss its appeal is clearly the right one,” Wilmer Hale, the largest of the four firms, said in a statement Monday night.
Judge Beryl Howell, addressing the order targeting Perkins Coie, drew a historical parallel. She noted that no prior president had issued executive actions of this kind against a law firm and invoked Shakespeare’s line about eliminating lawyers, describing the move as drawn from an old and troubling playbook.
The broader aim of the orders, as described in the litigation, was not limited to the four firms that sued. The threat itself sent a signal across the legal industry. In the months following the executive actions, some large firms scaled back pro bono representation for clients challenging administration policies, including immigrants affected by mass deportation efforts.
With the appeals withdrawn, the lower court rulings now serve as the final judicial word on the matter. The administration’s attempt to discipline and deter law firms through executive power has been halted in court. But the episode leaves behind a complicated legacy, one that includes a year in which segments of the legal profession recalibrated their approach under the shadow of potential retaliation.
The Justice Department and the firms involved did not immediately respond to requests for comment following the reports.
