WASHINGTON, March 6 - The U.S. Department of Justice filed papers on Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking to revive executive orders issued by President Donald Trump that sought punitive measures against four large American law firms.
The administration asked the D.C. Circuit to overturn rulings by lower-court judges who had blocked the directives aimed at Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey. In its filing, the Justice Department argued that the trial judges had overreached by invalidating presidential directives that, the administration says, rest within the president’s core constitutional powers.
The department’s brief criticized the district court judges for what it said was an undue reluctance to recognize the orders' constitutional dimensions. The filing accused the judges of having "bent over backwards" to strike down the measures without giving adequate consideration to their lawful aspects and applications.
The four law firms had mounted legal challenges contending the orders were unlawful retaliatory acts by the president. The firms said the directives targeted them for representing his political adversaries, for taking on clients who had litigated against the administration, or for having employed lawyers previously involved in government investigations related to the president. The executive orders sought to restrict lawyers from those firms from access to federal buildings and to terminate U.S. government contracts held by the firms' clients.
Federal judges who examined the measures concluded the directives violated constitutional protections. The rulings found that the orders infringed the First Amendment by abridging free speech and also transgressed the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. The district courts issued permanent injunctions barring enforcement of the directives.
The Justice Department’s appellate filing represents the administration’s first extensive explanation of its legal theory for asking that the orders be reinstated. It follows a brief procedural detour earlier in the week when the department initially moved to abandon its appeals on Monday, then reversed course and decided to pursue the appeals the following day.
WilmerHale responded on Friday with a statement rejecting the government’s decision to press the appeal. The firm said, "we disagree with the government’s decision to appeal this judicial consensus, and we will proudly continue to defend our clients and our firm." The statement framed the firm's position as a defense of both its clients’ interests and the institution of the firm itself.
In its brief, the Justice Department underscored that the core dispute is not about protecting law firms per se. The filing stated the case is "not about the sanctity of the American law firm" but rather raises questions about whether lower courts have intruded on constitutional presidential authority in matters, including national security and other areas, where the executive traditionally exercises broad discretion.
Separately, the administration reached settlements last year with nine other major law firms to rescind or avoid similar actions. Firms such as Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis agreed to settlements and, collectively, pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work to causes supported by the president, according to the filings referenced in the appeals documents.
The government faced a Friday deadline to file its opening appellate papers in the D.C. Circuit. As of the filing, the appeals court had not scheduled an argument date to consider the administration’s request to reinstate the executive orders.