DOJ to Appeal Fourth Law Firm Executive Order Case, Escalating Trump’s Legal Battle with Big Law
Washington, D.C. – August 22, 2025 – The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has signaled its intent to appeal a fourth federal court ruling striking down a Trump administration executive order targeting a prominent law firm, according to sources familiar with the matter. The case involves Susman Godfrey, one of four elite law firms—alongside Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—that successfully challenged President Donald Trump’s executive orders as unconstitutional. This latest appeal, expected to be filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, marks a continued effort by the Trump administration to defend its controversial campaign against Big Law firms perceived as political adversaries.
Background of the Executive Order Cases
Since February 2025, Trump has issued a series of executive orders targeting major law firms, alleging they engaged in “conduct detrimental to American interests” by representing clients or employing attorneys opposed to his agenda. The orders, including Executive Order 14263 against Susman Godfrey, imposed punitive measures such as suspending security clearances, restricting access to federal buildings, and directing agencies to terminate contracts with the targeted firms. Susman Godfrey was singled out for its representation of Dominion Voting Systems in a $787.5 million defamation settlement against Fox News, which Trump claimed “weaponized the legal system.”
Four federal judges—Beryl Howell, John Bates, Richard Leon, and Loren AliKhan—have ruled these orders unconstitutional, citing violations of First and Fifth Amendment rights. In the Susman Godfrey case, Judge AliKhan, in a June 28, 2025, ruling, declared the order “unconstitutional from beginning to end,” arguing it was a retaliatory attack on protected speech and a threat to the independence of the legal profession. The DOJ has already appealed rulings in the Perkins Coie (June 30, 2025), Jenner & Block (July 21, 2025), and WilmerHale (July 25, 2025) cases, setting the stage for a consolidated battle in the D.C. Circuit.
DOJ’s Appeal Strategy
The DOJ’s decision to appeal the Susman Godfrey ruling, expected to be formalized in the coming days, follows a pattern of challenging judicial blocks on Trump’s executive orders. The administration argues that the president has broad authority to manage national security and federal contracting, including the discretion to limit interactions with firms deemed risky. In court filings, DOJ attorneys, led by Acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle, have claimed the orders address “lawfare” and protect national interests, though they have not detailed specific legal arguments for the Susman Godfrey appeal.
Legal experts, however, see the appeals as a long shot. Timothy Zick, a professor at William & Mary Law School, noted that the unanimous rejection of the orders by judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents underscores their constitutional flaws. “The administration’s strategy appears less about winning in court and more about signaling to other firms to avoid challenging Trump,” Zick said. The D.C. Circuit, known for its rigorous scrutiny of executive actions, is unlikely to reverse the lower courts, especially given the orders’ clear targeting of firms for their protected speech and associations, as highlighted in NAACP v. Button (1963).
Implications for Big Law and the Rule of Law
The appeals signal an escalation in Trump’s campaign against Big Law, which has fractured the legal industry. While Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey fought back and won, other firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom struck deals with the administration, pledging millions in pro bono work to avoid similar orders. These deals, totaling nearly $1 billion across nine firms, have drawn criticism for compromising the independence of the bar.
The DOJ’s persistence in appealing, despite four consecutive losses, has raised concerns about its broader strategy. W. Bradley Wendel, a legal ethics professor at Cornell, described the approach as “cynical but effective,” noting that the administration may be banking on intimidating firms into compliance rather than securing legal victories. Posts on X reflect polarized sentiment, with users like @SenEricSchmitt praising the administration’s push against “lawfare,” while others, like @DavidAFrench, argue the appeals are an attempt to bypass judicial checks on executive power.
The Susman Godfrey appeal could set a precedent for how far the executive branch can go in targeting private entities for their legal work. The firm’s statement following AliKhan’s ruling emphasized its commitment to “protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political beliefs,” a stance echoed by the other three firms. Over 500 law firms signed an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie, indicating broad industry support for challenging the orders.
Economic and Political Context
The appeals come amid economic turbulence, with the July 2025 jobs report showing only 73,000 jobs added and a 4.2% unemployment rate, partly attributed to Trump’s tariff policies. The administration’s focus on legal battles with law firms may distract from addressing these economic challenges, potentially eroding public support, as Trump’s economic approval rating has dipped to 37%. The D.C. Circuit’s rulings, expected in late 2025 or early 2026, could further shape perceptions of Trump’s use of executive power as the 2026 USMCA renegotiation looms.
Conclusion
The DOJ’s planned appeal of the Susman Godfrey ruling marks the fourth attempt to revive Trump’s executive orders against Big Law, despite unanimous judicial rejections. The cases highlight a critical tension between executive authority and the independence of the legal profession, with significant implications for the rule of law. As the D.C. Circuit prepares to hear these appeals, the legal community watches closely, aware that the outcomes could redefine the boundaries of presidential power and attorney-client representation.
For more details, visit Law.com or Reuters.com.