A federal appeals panel in Washington is set to hear arguments Thursday over the Trump administration’s bid to revive executive orders aimed at four elite law firms. The orders targeted Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey, Wilmer Hale and Jenner & Block with punishing sanctions over their past representation or employment of people seen as political foes of President Donald Trump.
The case has become one of the sharpest tests yet of how far a president can go in using executive power against the legal profession. Four separate district court judges already blocked the orders and later made those rulings permanent, finding the measures unconstitutional. Some of those judges likened the pressure campaign on “Big Law” to McCarthyism and the Red Scare, a comparison that captured how unusually personal and expansive the fight had become.
The sanctions the White House sought to impose went beyond rhetoric. The injunctions stopped the administration from barring lawyers at the firms from some federal properties and from restricting their security clearances, penalties that several firms said would effectively bankrupt them. The administration’s lawyers told the court in a March filing that the appeal “is not about the sanctity of the American law firm; it is about lower courts encroaching on the constitutional power of the President to discuss and address invidious racial discrimination, national security risks, and other problems with certain law firms.”
That legal fight unfolded as at least nine other elite firms struck controversial settlements with the administration to avoid similar orders. Under those deals, the firms agreed to provide pro bono work for causes supported by the White House, and the administration said the settlements totaled nearly $1 billion. The agreements also prompted an exodus of high-profile attorneys at several of the firms, underscoring how quickly the pressure campaign spread beyond the original four targets.
The Justice Department briefly seemed ready to walk away from the appeal in March, notifying the attorneys and the circuit court that it was withdrawing the case. Less than 24 hours later, it reversed course and said it would continue arguing the appeal. That reversal left the injunctions in place while the administration sought another shot at overturning them, and Thursday’s hearing now puts the dispute squarely back before the judges.
The question before the panel is not whether the orders were disruptive. They were. The real issue is whether the administration can revive sanctions that four district court judges already found unconstitutional after a campaign that split the legal industry, forced settlements from some firms and pushed others into court. If the appeals court sides with the lower courts, the executive orders stay dead and the administration’s effort to use federal pressure against disfavored law firms ends there.
