‘No Safety in Appeasement’: Law Firms That Fought Trump Vindicated as DOJ Drops Cases

This article was originally published in Common Dreams under Creative Commons 3.0 license. Read the original article. Contact: editor@commondreams.org

By Julia Conley

Congressman Jamie Raskin said the US Department of Justice’s decision Monday to abandon its legal cases against law firms that refused to capitulate to President Donald Trump should serve as “a reminder that those who fight back against authoritarianism are winning.”

The DOJ asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to dismiss its cases against law firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block, which won legal challenges they filed last year after Trump issued executive orders saying they should lose government contracts and their employees should be blocked from government buildings.

Those executive orders were signed because the firms represented and employed high-profile Democrats and other opponents of Trump.

Other law firms, including Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, angered lawyers within their ranks and the larger legal community when they signed deals with Trump; the latter firm agreed to end its internal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and provide $40 million in free legal work for the president and causes he supports.

See Also: The paradox of Bangladesh’s democratic rebirth: A critical analysis of the 2026 election’s promise and pitfalls

The Trump administration’s decision on Monday proved, said Raskin (D-Md.), that “there’s no safety in appeasement.”

“When the Trump administration tried to bully and silence law firms by banning them from federal buildings, courthouses and contracts, a handful—like Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—fought back,” said Raskin. “Today, those firms forced Trump to back down and abandon his blatantly unconstitutional effort to punish lawyers, clients, and causes because Trump disagrees with their speech. Meanwhile, the firms that chose to roll over saddled their associates and partners with doing billions of dollars-worth of free legal work for Trump, his twisted administration and his MAGA allies.”

While other firms caved to Trump’s demands last year, the companies that didn’t quickly won legal victories, with one federal judge saying the executive order targeting Jenner & Block was “doubly violative of the Constitution” because it targeted the clients it represents as well as a lawyer it once employed—Andrew Weissman, who was part of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that investigated Trump.

“This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the executive branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers,” US District Judge John Bates wrote last May. “It thus violates the Constitution and the court will enjoin its operation in full.”

Jenner & Block said Monday that “the government’s decision to withdraw its appeals makes permanent the rulings of four federal judges that the executive orders targeting law firms, including Jenner & Block, were unconstitutional.”

“Our partnership is proud to have stood firm on behalf of its clients, and we look forward to continuing to serve them—guided by these bedrock values—for many decades to come,” said the firm.

See Also: What Does Tarique Rahman’s Return After Nearly 17 Years in Exile Mean for Bangladesh?

Brian Hauss, deputy director of the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project at the ACLU, said the DOJ had finally admitted “what everyone knew on Day 1: There is no way to defend these unconstitutional executive orders.”

“This shameful assault on the rule of law has failed, thanks to the brave lawyers who refused to compromise their integrity,” said Hauss.

Vanita Gupta, former associate attorney general under the Biden administration, told NBC News that the law groups that struck deals with the White House had “undermined the rule of law and the legal profession in this country.”

“This episode will be remembered as demonstrating the difference between institutions that had the ethical courage to uphold the Constitution and fight bullying and then won, and those that compromised their ethics and gained nothing,” Gupta said. “Let’s hope that media companies, universities, and other organizations pay heed.”

In addition to his attacks on law firms, the president has threatened universities with funding cuts and federal investigations into what the White House views as antisemitism and extremism on campus and the colleges’ efforts to promote diversity and inclusion.

At least six universities have struck deals with Trump. The University of Pennsylvania agreed to ban transgender student athletes from participating on women’s sports teams and Columbia University agreed to further crack down on campus protests like those that erupted in 2024 against US support for Israel’s assault on Gaza—protests that both the Biden and Trump administrations claimed were antisemitic.

Harvard sued the administration over its decision to freeze $2.2 billion in research funding and was granted a restraining order last year to protect international students whom the White House had threatened with visa restrictions.

On Monday, Raskin said the DOJ’s decision to back down from the attacks on law firms was “another significant victory for the rule of law over Trump’s reign of lawlessness.”

[VP]

Suggested Reading: