After abandoning its defense of President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting major law firms, the Justice Department abruptly reversed itself Tuesday and asked a federal court to let it continue defending the retaliatory orders.
Just one day earlier, the Trump administration had moved to voluntarily dismiss its appeals in four cases challenging Trump’s orders sanctioning Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey. Lower court rulings found the orders unlawful and unconstitutional, concluding they were designed to punish the firms for representing clients and causes Trump opposed.
The government’s dismissal was widely seen as a major victory for the rule of law.
The dismissal would have left intact blistering district court decisions warning that Trump’s actions threatened the country’s adversarial legal system — the foundational principle that everyone is entitled to representation, even against a sitting president.
But Tuesday, in a stunning reversal and without explanation, the DOJ filed a motion to withdraw its own dismissal and press forward with the appeals.
In plain terms, the administration is now trying to undo its decision to walk away — and instead keep fighting to reinstate the executive orders judges found unlawful.
All four firms swiftly opposed the Trump admin’s sudden reversal, urging the appeals court to reject the government’s attempt to withdraw its voluntary dismissal.
“Plaintiffs-Appellees oppose the government’s unexplained request to withdraw yesterday’s voluntary dismissal, to which all parties had agreed,” the firms wrote in a filing Tuesday. “Under no circumstances should the government’s unexplained about-face provide a basis for an extension of its brief.”
Trump’s orders sought to cripple the firms’ ability to represent clients in matters involving the federal government. The orders terminated government contracts, stripped lawyers of security clearances and blocked access to federal buildings. Some firms were targeted because they represented Trump’s political opponents. Others were singled out for their work on voting rights cases or for challenging Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Multiple federal judges found the orders likely violated the First Amendment, which protects free speech and association, and due process protections that guard against government retaliation. In one March hearing, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said the government’s defense of the order sent “chills” down her spine, warning it could intimidate attorneys from taking politically sensitive cases.
The DOJ’s initial decision to drop the appeals signaled a retreat from defending that unprecedented use of executive power. Tuesday’s filing signals something else entirely — a willingness to revive a legal theory that courts have already rejected as unconstitutional.
For pro-democracy advocates, the whiplash is alarming.
The fight is not simply about contracts, but also about whether a president can use the machinery of the federal government to punish private firms for who they represent. If allowed to stand, Trump’s approach would mark a dangerous shift in which legal advocacy becomes grounds for political retaliation.
Several firms refused to back down and sued. Others, like Paul, Weiss, struck deals with the administration and pledged millions in pro bono work aligned with White House priorities to have sanctions lifted.
Now, with the DOJ seeking to withdraw its own dismissal, the appeals could move forward in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. If the court grants the motion, the litigation will resume and the administration will once again argue that the president has sweeping authority to sideline firms he disfavors.