DOJ Drops Appeals, Ending Trump's Legal Fight Against Law Firms Over 'Enemy' Ties
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Justice has formally abandoned its effort to revive a series of controversial executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump against four prominent law firms. In a filing Monday, the DOJ moved to dismiss its appeals, effectively closing the book on litigation that accused the administration of weaponizing government power to punish perceived legal adversaries.
The orders, which were separately invalidated by four federal judges last year, had sought to revoke security clearances and bar access to federal buildings for attorneys at WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. The judges uniformly condemned the actions as constitutionally flawed and an unprecedented form of retaliation against firms for their legal work and professional associations.
"The government's decision to dismiss its appeal is clearly the right one," a WilmerHale spokesperson stated. The firm had been targeted due to its past representation of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The move spares the Biden administration from continuing a legal defense of orders widely criticized by the legal establishment as an assault on the independence of the bar.
Analysts view the withdrawal as a strategic retreat, avoiding a potentially damaging appellate ruling that could have further cemented the lower courts' rebuke of the former president's tactics. "This was a fight the current administration had no interest in inheriting," said legal scholar Dr. Evelyn Reed of Georgetown University. "It draws a clear line, repudiating the use of executive authority to settle personal or political scores against private counsel."
The targeted firms were linked to lawyers involved in investigations Trump opposed, notably the Mueller probe into Russian election interference. A Jenner & Block spokesperson, whose firm was cited for its ties to former Mueller team member Andrew Weissmann, said, "This chapter reaffirms our century-old commitment to zealous, uncompromised advocacy for our clients."
The controversy had sent shockwaves through the legal industry, prompting nine other large firms to pledge nearly $1 billion in pro bono services to the government in deals seen as attempts to avoid similar targeting.
Reaction & Analysis
Mark Thorne, Constitutional Law Professor: "This is a quiet but significant victory for the rule of law. The judiciary checked an overreach, and now the executive branch has wisely chosen not to relitigate a losing battle. It reinforces that the practice of law cannot be penalized based on which client one represents."
Sarah Chen, Partner at a Competing Firm: "While the right outcome, it's alarming it ever got this far. It created a chilling effect that lingers. Many firms are now reviewing their public interest and pro bono work through a risk-averse lens, which is a loss for justice."
Gregory "Ray" Masters, Political Commentator (Sharp Tone): "This is a complete surrender. The Deep State law firms that actively worked to undermine a sitting president get off scot-free. It signals to every activist attorney that there are no consequences for turning the legal system into a political weapon. A disgraceful end to a necessary pushback."
Priya Vasquez, Legal Ethics Analyst: "The systemic impact is profound. The episode tested the resilience of professional independence against political pressure. The courts held, but the fact that such orders were ever issued should be a case study for decades on the dangers of conflating legal representation with political allegiance."
The case was Jenner & Block v. DOJ, D.C. Cir., No. 25-5265.