ABA, Ex-Judges And Many More Back BigLaw In EO Appeal

Published
Score
3

Why it matters

Core event: The Trump administration's DOJ filed to dismiss its consolidated D.C. Circuit appeals of four district court rulings striking down executive orders (EOs) targeting BigLaw firms as unconstitutional on Monday, but reversed course less than 24 hours later on Tuesday, seeking to "undismiss" and revive the appeals ahead of a Friday briefing deadline.[1][4][5][10] BigLaw firms opposed the reversal, while numerous amici—including the ABA, 239 former judges, 21 states, and lawmakers—filed briefs supporting the firms by arguing the EOs violate constitutional rights like free speech and due process.[2][3]

Key players: Targeted firms are Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey; nine other firms settled with the administration for nearly $1 billion in pro bono work.[1][4][7][8][10] Judges involved: Beryl Howell (Obama appointee), John Bates and Richard Leon (G.W. Bush appointees), Loren AliKhan (Biden appointee), all D.D.C.[1] DOJ represents the administration; ABA sued separately, claiming the EOs intimidate lawyers into abandoning clients.[7][9][10]

Context and timeline: Trump issued EOs punishing firms for representing opponents, administration officials, or allies (e.g., January 6 cases, Trump prosecutions); firms sued, winning injunctions starting ~2025.[1][7][9][10] ABA filed in June 2025 alleging a broader "intimidation policy."[9] Post-rulings, DOJ appealed but flip-flopped this week amid criticism of "incompetence and chaos" from ex-Judge Shira Scheindlin.[1][4][5]

Newsworthiness: Reported April 3, 2026, the DOJ's abrupt reversal highlights administration turmoil and tests constitutional limits on punishing lawyers, with massive amicus support signaling broad legal opposition just before the appeal deadline.[2][3][4][5]

Sources

mail

Get notified about new Legal Intelligence Tracker

Primary sources. No fluff. Straight to your inbox.