#KathrynRubino points out that the #Trump #DOJ argues that since nine named #BigLaw #LawFirms capitulated, that must mean that these four law firms and the four judges who ruled for them must be wrong.

> But the most revealing part of the filing comes when the DOJ addresses the broader legal industry, and specifically the firms that chose a different, much more shameful, path than the four challengers. The DOJ points to the firms that didn’t sue, the yellow-bellied nine that cut deals with the administration:

> > The President also issued (or considered issuing) EOs addressing risks and practices from other law firms not parties to this appeal. In fact, many law firms agreed to address their practices and commit to providing pro bono work in the public interest.

— p. 14

> Then helpfully lists the nine firms for those that don’t have their names engraved in the brain:

>> Allen Overy Shearman Sterling; Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; Milbank; Paul, Weiss; Simpson Thacher; Skadden; and Wilkie Farr.

— p. 14

> And contrasts that capitulation with the plaintiffs,

> > The four plaintiff law firms instead filed suit.

— p. 14

> The DOJ is arguing that the orders are legitimate, in part, because other firms folded.

https://abovethelaw.com/2026/03/dojs-defense-of-trumps-biglaw-executive-orders-look-how-many-firms-we-scared-into-compliance/