Four law firms sued the Department of Justice and other federal agencies in federal court in Washington, alleging that executive orders punishing them for their clients were unconstitutional. District judges permanently enjoined all four orders in May and June 2025. The D.C. Circuit heard the government’s consolidated appeals on May 14, 2026, and has not yet ruled, so the injunctions remain in force.
Latest development May 14, 2026
On May 14, 2026, the D.C. Circuit heard consolidated oral argument in the government’s appeals, together with the related case Zaid v. Executive Office of the President. Paul Clement argued for the firms, and Abhishek Kambli argued for the government. As of mid-September 2026, the court had not ruled, and the injunctions remain in force.
Why it matters
The appeals will decide whether a President may use security clearances, contracting bans, and building restrictions to punish law firms for their clients, and whether courts can review those measures. The outcome affects the independence of the bar and clients’ access to counsel against the government.
Background
In the first months of the second Trump administration, the President signed executive orders targeting several major law firms. The orders cited the firms’ past representation of his perceived political opponents or of causes the administration disfavored. The orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey directed federal agencies to suspend the firms’ lawyers’ security clearances and to terminate government contracts touching the firms or their clients. They also barred firm personnel from federal buildings. Other firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Covington, faced similar pressure but settled or reached accommodations with the White House rather than litigate.
Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey instead sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They argued that the orders were unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech and association and violated due process. They also argued that the orders interfered with clients’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel of their choice. Each case went to a different judge of the court. Each judge granted a temporary restraining order and later entered a permanent injunction striking down the relevant order in full, in rulings issued between May and June 2025.
The government appealed all four rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which consolidated the cases. On March 2, 2026, the Department of Justice moved to dismiss its own appeals. The next day, it withdrew that motion without explanation and said it would continue the appeals. On March 16, 2026, the D.C. Circuit allowed the appeals to proceed to full briefing and argument. The court heard oral argument on May 14, 2026, together with the related case Zaid v. Executive Office of the President.
As of mid-September 2026, the D.C. Circuit had not ruled, and the district court injunctions remain in effect. The appeals raise whether a President may use security clearances and federal contracting to punish law firms for their clients and causes, and whether courts may review such measures.
Timeline 18 events
-
HearingD.C. Circuit hears consolidated oral argument
Chief Judge Srinivasan and Judges Pillard and Rao heard the appeals together with the related case Zaid v. Executive Office of the President. Paul Clement argued for the firms, and Abhishek Kambli argued for the government.
Public Advisory - May 14, 2026 Oral ArgumentsPerkins Coie v. DOJ Oral Argument: "There Are Certain Things Even the Unitary Executive Cannot Do."
-
FilingOutside groups file amicus briefs supporting the law firms
The Washington Legal Foundation and civil liberties and NGO coalitions urged the D.C. Circuit to affirm the injunctions against the executive orders.
-
FilingPerkins Coie and co-appellees file consolidated appellee briefs
The four firms defended the district court injunctions and called the government’s reversal on appeal indefensible.
ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED ON MAY 14, 2026 (Perkins Coie Appellee Brief)
-
OrderD.C. Circuit grants DOJ’s motion to keep appeals alive
The court allowed the government to continue its appeals after it withdrew its dismissal motion, and set the matter for full briefing and argument.
Biglaw Executive Order Fight Heads To D.C. Circuit (For Real This Time)
-
OrderDOJ withdraws motion to dismiss its appeals
A day after moving to dismiss, the Department of Justice asked to withdraw the motion. It gave no explanation and said it would continue the appeals.
Justice Department reverses course and now intends to defend Trump's executive orders targeting law firmsDOJ Nixes Plan To Drop Law Firm EO Appeals In About-Face
-
OrderDOJ moves to voluntarily dismiss its own appeals
The Justice Department told the D.C. Circuit it would drop its defense of the executive orders and abandon its appeals of the four district court injunctions.
DOJ moves to drop defense of Trump's executive orders targeting law firms
-
JudgmentDistrict court strikes down Susman Godfrey order
The court found the executive order punishing Susman Godfrey unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction.
Judge finds Trump executive order punishing Susman Godfrey law firm unconstitutional
-
JudgmentJudge Leon permanently enjoins WilmerHale order
Judge Leon struck down the executive order targeting WilmerHale, calling parts of the government’s justification “absurd.”
-
JudgmentJudge Bates permanently enjoins Jenner & Block order
Judge Bates granted summary judgment for Jenner & Block, holding the executive order was unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.
Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice 1:25-cv-00916 (D.D.C.)
-
JudgmentJudge Howell permanently enjoins Perkins Coie order
In a 102-page opinion, Judge Howell ruled that the order violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and permanently blocked its enforcement.
Judge rules Trump executive order targeting law firm Perkins Coie is unconstitutional
-
OrderJudge blocks executive order against Susman Godfrey
A federal judge issued a restraining order halting enforcement of the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey.
Judge Blocks Trump's Executive Order Against Susman Godfrey (1)
-
OrderJudges Bates and Leon grant temporary restraining orders
Judge John D. Bates granted a temporary restraining order in the Jenner & Block case, and Judge Richard J. Leon granted one in the WilmerHale case.
-
FilingJenner & Block and WilmerHale file suit
Both firms sued the same day, each asking the court to declare its executive order unconstitutional and to enjoin enforcement.
Jenner & Block, WilmerHale sue over Trump orderTwo Big Law Firms Sue Trump as Third Settles to Avoid Order
-
OtherTrump signs executive order targeting WilmerHale
A similar order targeted WilmerHale over its past employment of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
-
OtherTrump signs executive order targeting Jenner & Block
Executive Order 14246 singled out Jenner & Block over its ties to former partner Andrew Weissmann, a member of the Mueller investigation team.
Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice 1:25-cv-00916 (D.D.C.)
-
OrderJudge Howell grants partial temporary restraining order
Judge Beryl Howell temporarily blocked major parts of the executive order pending further proceedings.
Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice (2025, D.C. District Court)
-
FilingPerkins Coie sues DOJ over executive order
Perkins Coie sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and sought a temporary restraining order, calling the order “an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice.”
Perkins Coie files suit to block Trump executive order aimed at punishing firm
-
OtherTrump signs executive order targeting Perkins Coie
Executive Order 14230, “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” cited the firm’s work for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. It directed suspension of security clearances, termination of federal contracts, and building-access restrictions.
US judge rules Trump order against law firm Perkins Coie unconstitutional
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the D.C. Circuit rule on the government’s consolidated appeals of the four law firm injunctions by June 30, 2027?
- D.C. Circuit upholds all four injunctions50%
- Injunctions upheld in part, narrowed22%
- Still pending on June 30, 202715%
- D.C. Circuit vacates the injunctions7%
- Appeals end without a merits ruling6%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2027in 8 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The D.C. Circuit is most likely to uphold all four injunctions, at 50%, with a ruling expected by June 30, 2027. Four district judges independently struck down the orders on First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment grounds. The government also briefly moved to abandon its appeals.
How it resolves. Resolves on the first D.C. Circuit judgment in Nos. 25-5241, 25-5265, 25-5277, and 25-5310, as shown on the docket or in a published opinion. “Affirms” means all four permanent injunctions are upheld in full. “Reverses” means all four are vacated or reversed in full. “Mixed” means any other merits result, including vacating only the security clearance provisions or treating the four cases differently. “Dismissed” means the appeals end without a merits ruling, through voluntary dismissal or a jurisdictional or mootness dismissal. “Still pending” means no such judgment or dismissal has issued by June 30, 2027. Rehearing petitions filed after the judgment do not change the result.
Reasoning
Starting point. Federal government appeals of permanent injunctions in constitutional cases decided by the D.C. Circuit after oral argument: Federal courts of appeals reverse roughly 10% to 20% of civil judgments. Government appellants fare somewhat better, perhaps 20% to 30% obtaining some relief. Most D.C. Circuit argued cases are decided within about 12 months.
The base rate favors appellees. Courts of appeals reverse a minority of civil judgments, and government appellants rarely win full reversal. Four separate district judges reached the same result on overlapping constitutional grounds, which strengthens the case for affirmance. The government’s March 2, 2026, motion to drop its appeals, withdrawn a day later without explanation, suggests limited commitment to defending the orders. The main risk to the firms is partial relief rather than full reversal. Courts have long treated security clearance decisions as largely committed to executive discretion, so a ruling that narrows the injunctions on that provision is the leading alternative at 22%. Full vacatur is a long shot at 7%. The case was argued 4.4 months ago with a related case, and a divided opinion could take longer, so a still-pending result by June 30, 2027, carries 15%. A renewed voluntary dismissal or a mootness ruling remains possible but unlikely at 6%.
Four district judges independently enjoined the orders in full · Security clearance reviewability may support a narrower ruling · Government briefly moved to abandon its appeals in March 2026 · Argued May 14, 2026, a ruling is due within months · Related Zaid case may shape timing and scope
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 24, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made