More coverage of Friday's appellate briefs from the four #LawFirms who stood up for the #Constitution against the tyranny of Trump's extortionate #ExecutiveOrders.
• (paywallled) https://www.law360.com/articles/2458839 "Firms Targeted By Trump Urge DC Circ. To Uphold EO Rulings"
How is it this terse and hard to unpack? Does... does Law360 think they are print journalism?
• https://www.jdjournal.com/2026/03/30/law-firms-urge-court-to-uphold-block-on-trump-orders/ — A great example of how trying to sound fair to both sides can minimize the fact that one side is completely crazypants, is an affront to the Constitution, and is willing to drag us all to hell. SNAFU.
I guess we're lucky that anyone in the "view from nowhere" camp even covered Friday's briefs because it's not getting a lot over coverage from the big networks with more visible failures like the elective war based on overdependence on AIs trained to be echo chambers replacing critical thought and Trump deciding first to put untrained ICE agents in airports to "help" TSA without a plan and then deciding that if the Constitution says he has to negotiate with Congress then laws mean nothing.
> Biglaw To D.C. Circuit: This Isn’t Just About Us — It’s About Whether The President Can Put Lawyers On A Leash
> Susman, Jenner, Perkins, and Wilmer say the executive orders are retaliatory, abusive, and very much not okay.
Now that's the headline I want to see.
And the author, Kathryn Rubino, ends the piece showing she and the law firms knows what's at stake:
> The question isn’t whether Biglaw can survive; it’s whether the legal system, as we understand it, can.
But, I guess Liz Dye is busy, because there could always be room for sharper language. :)
Four law firms targeted last year by President Donald Trump urged the D.C. Circuit on Friday to affirm lower court rulings that struck down executive orders restricting their ability to practice law, saying the directives blatantly violate the Constitution.
#lawsuit #appeal update from Friday continues with more briefs:
#SusmanGodfrey:
• We are being punished for doing our job as lawyers and Constitutionally associating with fellow scapegoat of the President's woes Dominion.
• This retaliation for ... checks notes ... existing without worshiping #Trump is an example of the "wolf com[ing] as a wolf." The Government admitted this.
• As the retaliation scheme is proven, Section 1 can't be severed *now*. It's not government speech, but rather the motive behind a crafted scheme. Also, there is no severability clause in *our* #ExecutiveOrder
• So little due process that we found out about this when Trump signed it on TV.
• The government pointed out that nine other #lawfirms capitulated, thus proving that the harms are not imaginary or speculative.
Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.
#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.
#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review.
DOJ Un-Drops Its Appeal Against Law Firms, Files Brief That Gets The First Amendment Exactly Backwards
On Wednesday of last week, I wrote a post about how the Trump administration had quietly given up defending its unconstitutional executive orders targeting law firms. The DOJ was dropping its appea…
#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.
Here we go. #Anthropic sues the Government for labeling it a security risk out of animus. #WilmerHale, one of the #LawFirms that stood up to #Trump's bullying #ExecutiveOrders now gets paid to explain again that the government doesn't get to have hurt feelings.
Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War (California N.D. 26-cv-01996) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72379655/anthropic-pbc-v-us-department-of-war/
Five counts, one theme — animus omnia vitiat:
Count I — APA / 10 U.S.C. § 3252 — The "supply chain risk" designation doesn't follow the statute or the facts.
Count II — First Amendment Retaliation — "AI shouldn't autonomously kill people" is protected speech.
Count III — Ultra Vires / Article II — No law lets a President destroy a company by social media post.
Count IV — Fifth Amendment Due Process — You can't de facto debar someone with no notice, no hearing, no findings.
Count V — APA § 558 — Agencies can't impose sanctions outside their delegated authority.
The Trump Administration had a temper tantrum and said "You're not the boss of me, I'm the boss of you. I'll end you!". Anthropic points out that animus is no substitute for #RuleOfLaw.
So why did they sue #Hegseth's #DepartmentOfWar rather than the statutory #DepartmentOfDefense? Because Trump authorized the name, because it shows respect to #Hegseth's sensitive feelings, and because it underscores the ridiculousness of the government tasking #AI to kill (and surveil) people autonomously. #skynet! On the off-chance the judge orders a caption change, their hands are clean and the lawyer's can't point to any act of defiance.
So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."
My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."
See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)
Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump
In other news, #Trump has bullied various #LawFirms into promising millions of dollars of free services and at least four firms said no, and won in Federal District Court.
> Trump’s only Big Law victories so far have come outside the courtroom. Nine top law firms ... reached agreements with Trump to provide at least $940 million worth of pro bono services collectively to avoid executive orders.
Last Tuesday, a day after saying in Appellate Court that they planned to abandon their appeal, Trump's DOJ reversed course.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/
> The administration told a court on Monday that it was abandoning its defense of executive orders targeting the firms. But on Tuesday, the Justice Department abruptly changed its position.
> The move amounted to a dizzying turnabout in one of President Trump’s most audacious — and, many legal experts said, unconstitutional — attempts at subduing potentially powerful adversaries. It created new uncertainty in a legal profession already roiled by the orders, after some of the country’s biggest law firms thought they had put to rest a key part of the president’s retribution campaign less than 24 hours before.
So on Friday, the DOJ is back in court with 97 pages in their opening brief in the appeal.
#PerkinsCoie LLP v. #DOJ (25-5241, Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, 2026-03-06 Brief for Appellants, 97 pages)
(consolidating Jenner & Block LLP v. DOJ, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP v. #ExecutiveOfficeOfThePresident, and #SusmanGodfrey LLP v. #EOP )
The Trump Administration Just Admitted Its War On Law Firms Was A Bluff. The Cowards Who Folded Already Paid The Price.
We’ve said it over and over again on this site: when you stand up to the bully, the bully backs down. When you capitulate, you get nothing but a permanent stain and an invitation for more abu…
Grow a spine and PUSH BACK on U.S. Gov and you will win!
Media is reporting the U.S. Administration has walked away from legal battles with four law firms - Perkins Coie, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey.
The firms were recently notified that the U.S. administration was dropping its appeals - no explanation provided, and the Department of Justice is not talking. Enough said! https://www.notus.org/courts/trump-administration-law-firm-order-appeals-reports #USGov #Lawsuit #LawFirms #Coersion #Appeals
Richard Penner
Techdirt
BGDon 🇨🇦 🇺🇸 👨💻