The Trump administration said Tuesday that it still wanted to defend President Donald Trump’s executive orders sanctioning several law firms, abruptly reversing course from its position a day earlier.
Judges last year blocked Trump’s orders aimed at the firms, which had hired his perceived foes or took on cases he disliked. The Justice Department was appealing those rulings and trying to restore the orders, which demanded that the firms lose access to government contracts and buildings.
On Monday evening, the agency said in a filing that it wanted to abandon the appeals, essentially admitting defeat. The law firms hailed that decision, with one saying the administration “capitulated.”
But in a startling turnaround less than 24 hours later, the administration wrote in a brief filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that it was seeking to withdraw its motion from a day earlier.
The Justice Department did not explain in the filing why it was backpedaling, stating only that it was its prerogative to keep appealing and adding that the court had not yet granted its request to dismiss the case. The White House declined to comment, referring questions to the Justice Department. A spokeswoman for the agency also declined to comment.
The four law firms involved — WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey — had all filed lawsuits challenging Trump’s sanctions, saying they could devastate their businesses.
Judges sided with all four firms last year, issuing often scathing rulings that rebuked the president’s orders as retaliatory and unconstitutional.
“The order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!” U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote while blocking sanctions for WilmerHale.
The administration has repeatedly defended the orders as lawful and criticized judges who ruled against them. In court papers and during hearings, the Justice Department has said the orders were not meant as punishment and suggested that the firms’ lawsuits infringed on Trump’s speech.
The government’s contradictory filings this week came ahead of a looming deadline in its appeals. The Justice Department’s opening brief in the case is due Friday, while the firms have briefs due in late March.
The firms criticized Trump’s executive orders and his administration’s reversal alike on Tuesday. The Justice Department “offered no explanation to either the parties or the court for its reversal,” Perkins Coie said in a statement.
“Yesterday evening, the Administration told the Court that it gave up and wouldn’t even try to defend its unconstitutional executive orders,” Susman Godfrey said in a statement. “Today, it reversed course. Regardless, Susman Godfrey will defend itself and the rule of law — without equivocation.”
In its filing on Tuesday, the Justice Department said the administration contacted attorneys for the firms and that they all opposed the move.
The filing included a statement attributed to the firms that said they “oppose the government’s unexplained request to withdraw yesterday’s voluntary dismissal, to which all parties had agreed. Under no circumstances should the government’s unexplained about-face provide a basis for an extension of its brief.”
The New York Times first reported Tuesday that the government would try to continue defending the executive orders.
While the firms involved in the appeals had fought Trump’s orders, other legal practices instead sought to avoid such battles. Nine firms struck deals with him to lift or avoid similar penalties, leading to intense upheaval and outrage across the legal industry.
The first firm to strike an agreement, Paul Weiss, pledged $40 million in pro bono work on issues that included assisting veterans. Eight more firms, including some of the country’s wealthiest, struck deals for increasingly large amounts as well, with combined pledges of pro bono work reaching nearly $1 billion.
These deals sent shock waves across the legal industry. The firms that reached the agreements defended them as needed to keep their businesses afloat, and their leaders vowed that the deals would not change their work.
But many attorneys were deeply skeptical of these pledges, expressing outrage internally as well as publicly. Lawyers at some firms resigned in protest following deals with Trump, while others left places that made deals and joined offices that were fighting his executive orders.
While the administration has not said why it reversed course Tuesday, the sudden change “suggests they’re disorganized,” Georgetown University law professor Emily R. Chertoff said. “It’s definitely unusual and makes it seem like things are maybe in a bit of disarray there in terms of their strategy.”
Perry Stein and Emily Davies contributed to this report.
The post Justice Dept. reverses course and seeks to defend orders targeting law firms appeared first on Washington Post.
