The Justice Department reversed course on Tuesday and told a federal appeals court it will continue defending President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting several major law firms — less than 24 hours after seeking to abandon the fight.
In a short filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, DOJ lawyers moved to withdraw their prior request to voluntarily dismiss the consolidated appeals. The DOJ offered no explanation for the abrupt change in position.
The Washington Examiner reached out to the White House for comment and was referred to the DOJ. A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment.
“Hours after asking the court to dismiss its appeal, the Department of Justice has abruptly reversed course and moved to continue its defense of the unconstitutional executive orders,” a spokesperson for Perkins Coie said. “It offered no explanation to either the parties or the court for its reversal.”
Judges in four separate cases last year struck down Trump’s executive orders that critics said were aimed at punishing firms affiliated with his political opponents.
The orders sought to suspend attorneys’ security clearances, restrict access to federal buildings, and direct agencies to terminate government contracts involving the firms and their clients. The affected firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — quickly won injunctions, with judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents finding the orders unconstitutional.
The DOJ appealed those rulings in June 2025 and was scheduled to file its opening brief on Friday. On Monday evening, however, the department moved to dismiss the appeals, prompting surprise across the legal community.
David Lat, a legal commentator who publishes the Substack Original Jurisdiction, said he was “weirdly looking forward” to seeing how the government would defend the orders, which he described as constitutionally vulnerable. Lat speculated the looming deadline may have prompted internal concerns about creating an unfavorable precedent in the District of Columbia Circuit.
Notably, the DOJ had previously sought delays and changes to the structure of the litigation ahead of Friday’s deadline.
Last month, a DOJ attorney handling the case requested that the litigation be stalled ahead of an appeals court ruling over the Trump administration’s revocation of attorney Mark Zaid‘s security clearance. The DOJ argued that both cases have links to the president’s Article II authorities, and it also sought to consolidate the lawsuits involving the law firms into a single case, given their similarities.
The targeted firms opposed the DOJ’s reversal, arguing the unexplained “about-face” should not justify any extension of the government’s briefing deadline.
It is unclear how the three-judge panel will respond, especially given that the DOJ sought to dismiss the cases less than 24 hours earlier.
While the DOJ can request dismissal, the final decision rests with the court, and the outcome of the case will be even more of an open question now, considering the about-face decision to request cancellation of the previously requested motion to dismiss.
Meanwhile, nine other firms previously pledged roughly $1 billion in pro bono work to causes favored by the administration in exchange for avoiding similar executive orders.
Trump signed the orders in March and April 2025, targeting firms over past hires and legal work tied to his political and legal battles.
Perkins Coie was targeted in part for its representation of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and its role in commissioning the Steele dossier, which former Obama administration leadership used as the basis to investigate the now-debunked claims that Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with Russia during that year’s presidential election.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ABANDONS DEFENSE OF TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS TARGETING LAW FIRMS
WilmerHale and Jenner & Block had hired lawyers involved in the DOJ’s prior Trump-Russia investigation, including Robert Mueller and one of his top deputies at the time, Andrew Weissmann.
Meanwhile, Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in the defamation case it filed against Fox News after the network was accused of defamation during its coverage of Trump’s 2020 election skepticism following his defeat. The suit was resolved in a $787 million settlement before the trial began.