DOJ to Appeal Fourth Law Firm Executive Order Case, Escalating Trump Administration’s Legal Battle with Big Law
August 24, 2025
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a notice of appeal to challenge a federal judge’s ruling that struck down an executive order targeting the prominent law firm Susman Godfrey, marking the fourth such appeal in a series of legal defeats for the Trump administration’s campaign against elite law firms. The appeal, announced on August 22, 2025, and filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, follows a June 2025 decision by U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, who declared the executive order unconstitutional and a threat to the rule of law. This move underscores the administration’s persistence in defending its controversial executive actions despite unanimous judicial rejections.
Background: Trump’s War on Big Law
Since February 2025, President Donald Trump has issued a series of executive orders targeting major law firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—for their perceived opposition to his political agenda or past associations with his adversaries. These orders, including Executive Order 14,263 against Susman Godfrey, sought to impose severe penalties, such as suspending attorneys’ security clearances, barring access to federal buildings, and terminating government contracts. The administration justified these measures as necessary to address “risks to critical American interests,” citing, for example, Susman Godfrey’s representation of Dominion Voting Systems in a $787.5 million defamation settlement against Fox News.
Each of the four targeted firms filed lawsuits, arguing the orders violated First and Fifth Amendment rights by retaliating against protected speech and legal representation. Federal judges, appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, have consistently ruled against the administration, describing the orders as “unprecedented” and “a shocking abuse of power.” Judge AliKhan, in her June 28, 2025, ruling, wrote that the order against Susman Godfrey was “unconstitutional from beginning to end” and threatened the independence of the legal profession, ordering all actions under it reversed.
The DOJ’s Appeal Strategy
The DOJ’s appeal of the Susman Godfrey ruling, reported by Law.com and confirmed by posts on X from users like @dotconnectinga and @BrendaSJeffreys, marks the fourth time the administration has sought to challenge judicial blocks on these executive orders. Previous appeals were filed for rulings against Perkins Coie (June 30, 2025), Jenner & Block (July 21, 2025), and WilmerHale (July 25, 2025). The cases will now proceed to the D.C. Circuit, which could set a precedent for the legality of targeting law firms for their client choices or past affiliations.
The administration’s legal arguments, though not detailed in the notices of appeal, are expected to center on the president’s discretion over national security and federal contracting. In prior cases, DOJ lawyers, including Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson, argued that the executive branch has the authority to revoke security clearances and limit access to government resources for firms deemed untrustworthy. However, judges like John Bates (Jenner & Block) and Beryl Howell (Perkins Coie) have rejected these claims, citing violations of free speech and due process, with Howell calling the Perkins order “retaliatory in nature” and an attack on the legal system.
Why the Appeals Matter
The appeals represent a high-stakes escalation in the Trump administration’s broader strategy to pressure Big Law. While the four targeted firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—have secured decisive victories, nine other firms, including Paul Weiss and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, avoided executive orders by pledging nearly $1 billion in pro bono work aligned with administration priorities, as noted in The New York Times. Critics, including legal scholars like Timothy Zick of William & Mary Law School, argue this reflects a “cynical but effective” tactic to intimidate firms into compliance rather than face litigation.
The D.C. Circuit’s rulings could have far-reaching implications:
- Legal Precedent: A decision upholding the judges’ rulings would reinforce protections for attorneys’ rights to represent clients without fear of government retaliation, potentially citing cases like NAACP v. Button (1963), which struck down similar restrictions on legal advocacy.
- Political Ramifications: Continued losses could weaken the administration’s narrative of unchecked executive power, especially after judges described the orders as resembling “ex post facto laws” or McCarthy-era blacklisting.
- Industry Impact: A favorable ruling for the administration could chill legal representation for clients opposing Trump’s agenda, while affirming the lower courts could embolden more firms to resist.
Mixed Signals from the Administration
Recent court filings, noted by X user @lkolin, suggest the administration may be reconsidering further executive orders against law firms, possibly signaling a strategic retreat. However, the DOJ’s decision to appeal all four cases indicates a commitment to defending the existing orders. Legal experts, like Cornell’s W. Bradley Wendel, argue the administration never expected to win in court but aimed to coerce firms into settling, a tactic that worked with firms like Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis.
Broader Context
The legal battles coincide with other challenges to Trump’s executive actions, such as those targeting DEI initiatives (Executive Order 14151) and immigration policies, as tracked by Just Security. The Fourth Circuit’s swift rejection of an appeal in the Abrego Garcia deportation case on April 17, 2025, suggests appellate courts may continue to scrutinize the administration’s actions closely. The Susman Godfrey appeal, alongside the others, will test whether the D.C. Circuit views these orders as a legitimate use of executive power or an unconstitutional overreach.
What’s Next?
The D.C. Circuit is expected to hear arguments in the coming months, with potential for further appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court if the administration loses again. Susman Godfrey, in a statement, reaffirmed its commitment to the rule of law, saying, “We applaud the Court for declaring the administration’s order unconstitutional.” The firm, along with Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, remains steadfast, with over 500 law firms signing an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie’s case.
As the legal community watches closely, the outcome of these appeals could shape the boundaries of executive authority and the independence of the legal profession for years to come. For now, the DOJ’s persistence signals that the fight against Big Law is far from over.
Sources: Law.com, The New York Times, NPR, Democracy Docket, CBS News, Reuters, The Hill, Just Security, The Free Speech Project, posts on X