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.

• https://abovethelaw.com/2026/03/biglaw-to-d-c-circuit-this-isnt-just-about-us-its-about-whether-the-president-can-put-lawyers-on-a-leash/

> 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. :)

#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.

#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/

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