He Tried to Break the Law Firms. The Law Firms Broke Him Instead.

The DOJ gave up, and four firms that refused to kneel walked away vindicated while the ones that caved are left to answer hard questions.

Update as of May 20, 2026 (see footnote #1)¹

---

What happens when the President of the United States turns the machinery of government against lawyers who dared to represent his opponents? What happens when the most powerful law enforcement agency in the world tries to punish private citizens for doing their jobs? And what happens when the targets refuse to kneel?

Here is what happens. The law holds. The Constitution breathes. And history takes notes.

The Executive Orders That Crossed the Line

I have tried cases for four decades. I have stood in courtrooms where careers, reputations, and fortunes were on the line. I signed amicus briefs in two of these cases because I knew what was at stake. This was all about whether the President could use executive orders as a weapon to intimidate the legal profession and silence opposition. On March 2, 2026, the Department of Justice dropped its appeals and walked away from its defense of those executive orders. It then reversed course on March 3rd. These moments matter more than most people realize.

In 2025, President Trump signed executive orders aimed at several specific big law firms. The orders sought to strip their lawyers of security clearances, block access to federal buildings, and choke off their ability to secure government contracts. The stated rationale focused on their clients and hiring practices. Federal judges across the board saw the real purpose. They struck the orders down as unconstitutional retaliation. One judge described the attack as unprecedented and chilling to the spine. As the news broke, I shared my thoughts in these posts below.²

Think about that. A sitting president directed the power of the federal government against private law firms because they represented people he did not like. If you believe in the rule of law, that should shake you.

Every district court that reviewed those orders rejected them. The Department of Justice appealed each loss. This week, when a brief was due in the D.C. Circuit, DOJ lawyers informed the court they were voluntarily dismissing the appeals. No explanation. No defense. No justification.

That is a legal surrender.

Why This Day Matters

March 2, 2026 deserves a place in the record. This is one of those days you circle.

[I wrote this post on March 2nd and things changed the next day. Rather than update this post months later, I provided the DOJ change of position and current status in footnote #1. Katie and I also talked about it during the interview above.]

The four firms that stood tall are:

Perkins Coie LLP: The first to file suit; targeted due to its history with the DNC and the “Steele Dossier.”

Jenner & Block LLP: Targeted for employing former members of the Special Counsel’s office (e.g., Andrew Weissmann).

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP: Targeted for its connection to Robert Mueller.

Susman Godfrey LLP: Targeted for representing Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation suit against Fox News.

They can now move forward with full access to government buildings, contracts, and clearances. They refused to bow. They refused to obey an order that violated their rights. They trusted the courts. They did the right thing and the courts vindicated them.

Marc Elias is a nationally recognized authority and expert in campaign finance, voting rights, redistricting law, and litigation. He has successfully argued and won four cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as dozens of cases in state supreme courts and U.S. courts of appeal. Here’s what Marc had to say about today’s decision by the DOJ:

---

---

For all the reasons Marc stated, you should care about all of this because when lawyers lose their independence, you lose yours next. The right to counsel means nothing if the government can punish lawyers for who they represent. The First Amendment means nothing if political retaliation becomes standard practice. The separation of powers collapses when executive power goes unchecked.

Today, the judiciary drew a line. And the executive branch stepped back.

The Firms That Folded

Nine firms chose a different path. They negotiated deals with the Trump administration. They agreed to provide a reported nine hundred forty million dollars in pro bono commitments directed toward conservative causes in exchange for relief from sanctions. Paul Weiss became the most visible example, pledging tens of millions to lift the cloud hanging over its head.

Here’s the list so you know who they are:

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (The first to settle ($40M pro bono; targeted due to former partner Mark Pomerantz.)

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Agreed to $100M in pro bono work to avoid sanctions.)

Milbank LLP (Settled for $100M; followed the hiring of vocal critic Neal Katyal.)

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (Settled for $100M; firm includes Doug Emhoff who is the husband of Kamala Harris).

Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Agreed to $125M in pro bono work.)

Latham & Watkins LLP (Agreed to $125M in pro bono work.)

A&O Shearman (First UK-headquartered firm to settle for $125M).

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (Agreed to $125M in pro bono work.)

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (Settled for $100M; former firm of current Deputy AG Todd Blanche.)

Now the DOJ has conceded the executive orders were legally indefensible. The appeals are gone. The sanctions have fallen apart. Those negotiated agreements remain.

The lawyers and firms who settled have to live with that. Their clients will ask why they capitulated. Law students will ask whether they want to join institutions that bend under political pressure. Partners will sit in conference rooms and revisit those decisions. Families will talk about this moment for years.

This was all about self-interest and character.

When you charge thousands of dollars an hour and advise clients to fight for their rights, you carry an obligation to stand firm when your own rights are threatened. Courage is contagious. So is cowardice.

The Psychological Playbook

Authoritarians test institutions. They apply pressure. They isolate targets. They create fear. They look for cracks. The goal is not only to win a legal battle. The goal is to send a message that resistance carries a cost.

Four firms absorbed the pressure and held their ground. They signaled that intimidation does not dictate their ethics. Two of them I was honored to support with my amicus brief signature.

The DOJ’s retreat reinforces a lesson every psychology student learns early. When a bully meets resistance backed by rules and collective strength, the dynamic shifts. And you saw that shift this week.

What This Means for You

You might not work at a global law firm. You might not hold a security clearance. You might never step into a federal courthouse. This still touches your life.

The legal profession functions as a guardrail in a democracy. Lawyers challenge unlawful policies. Lawyers represent unpopular clients. Lawyers test executive power. When the government targets lawyers for doing that work, every citizen’s protection shrinks.

You deserve a country where legal representation does not depend on political loyalty. You deserve institutions that refuse to bend to raw power. Your children deserve to grow up in a nation where courts act as a check, not a spectator.

This week proved that those guardrails still stand. They stand because people were willing to take a risk and fight.

Remembering the Villains, the Courage and the Lack Thereof

History will remember who resisted and who complied. History has a long memory. It records names. It records choices. It records moments when democracy felt fragile and institutions were asked to show a backbone.

I feel anger about what this administration has done to our unity, our standing in the world, and the tone of our civic life. I feel pride for the lawyers who refused to kneel. Both emotions can live in the same space. One fuels vigilance. The other fuels hope.

You do not protect democracy with slogans. You protect it with action. You protect it by supporting leaders and institutions that defend constitutional principles. You protect it by voting. You protect it by speaking up when power crosses a line.

There’s a lot going on right now. I’ve been writing and speaking about the war Trump declared against Iran and the harm it’s done and will continue to do to our nation and the world. But right now, in this post, I believe this is one of those moments when you just have to pause and recognize a win. Then you get back to work. The rule of law requires constant attention. The Constitution survives because ordinary citizens demand that it does.

Remember March 2, 2026. Remember who stood tall. Remember who bent. And let that memory guide your choices the next time power asks for your silence.

Mitch Jackson, Esq. (recommendations)

---

Subscribe (free and premium)

This is not about one case, one lawyer, or one moment. This is about power, accountability, and whether the rule of law still means anything when it is tested at the highest level.

If you care about where this is heading, if you want clear, unfiltered analysis from someone who has spent decades inside the system and knows exactly how it works, then stay with me.

Subscribe to Uncensored Objection. Support the work. Share it with people who need to see what is really happening.

I am going to keep showing up, laying this out, and connecting the dots.

Make sure you are here for it.

---

1. Update as of May 20, 2026: The DOJ Surrender Lasted One Day. Here Is What Happened Next.

I told you on March 2 that the Department of Justice gave up. Katie Couric and I discussed this story on her show the following day. But the DOJ surrender lasted less than twenty four hours. You deserve the full picture, so here it is.

On Monday, March 2, the DOJ filed motions to voluntarily dismiss its appeals in all four law firm cases. That was the white flag. By Tuesday morning March 3, the department had emailed the four firms, apologized for the short notice, and announced it would withdraw the dismissal. By Friday, March 6, the DOJ had filed a 97-page brief asking the appeals court to reinstate every executive order it had just abandoned.

No explanation. No theory of the case that survived a weekend. Just a reversal driven by headlines and ego.

The D.C. Circuit consolidated all four appeals and set them for argument alongside a related case brought by attorney Mark Zaid, who challenged the stripping of his own security clearance. The panel of three judges heard the consolidated arguments last Thursday on May 14. The administration brought in new counsel, Abhishek Kambli, to make its stand.

Judge Cornelia Pillard asked Kambli whether a president could strip security clearances from every lawyer at firms that represented Catholics, African Americans, or Asian Americans. Judge Sri Srinivasan pressed harder. He asked whether a president could deny a clearance purely because of a person’s race, with zero concern about trust. Kambli told the court that judges cannot review these decisions at all. He said the only check on a president who abuses this power is impeachment.

Read that again. The Justice Department of the United States stood in a federal courtroom and argued that a president can act on racial animus and no court may stop him.

Paul Clement argued for the firms. Clement is a Republican and a former Solicitor General. He told the panel the firms were singled out because they represented clients or hired lawyers who raised the president’s ire, and that the orders lay the president’s motives bare.

Two of the three judges sounded skeptical of the administration. The third, Trump appointee Neomi Rao, focused her questions on the limits of judicial review and seemed more receptive to the government. So this panel is not a lock.

Where This Stands Today

The four firms are WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. Their district court wins still stand. The injunctions still protect them. The panel has not ruled, and a decision is not expected for some time.

So the fight is not over. It is one ruling away from over, and two of the three judges who hold the pen sounded unconvinced by the government.

The nine firms that settled remain on the hook for nearly a billion dollars in pledged legal work for causes this administration favors. No appeal unwinds those deals. They bought their peace, and the receipt does not expire.

History is still taking notes. The pen is just resting between sentences.

Watch the D.C. Circuit. I will keep you posted the moment it rules.

2. The President Declared War on Lawyers—And If You Don’t Fight Back, You’re Surrendering the Constitution

Weaponizing the White House: Trump’s Unconstitutional Attack Against Perkins Coie

Standing Up to Power: How Perkins Coie and Judge Beryl Howell Defended the Constitution from Trump’s Executive Assault

This Isn’t Just About a Law Firm. It’s About All of Us.

Trial Lawyers At The Front Line Of Your Freedom