Story perspectives

DOJ Ends Defense of Trump's Controversial Legal Orders

3/3/2026

Summary

Story summary

The U.S. Department of Justice has stopped defending U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms such as Perkins Coie and WilmerHale.
The orders were deemed unconstitutional because they sought to punish firms for representing clients opposed to Trump's agenda.
The DOJ's decision follows multiple court rulings that upheld the firms' First Amendment rights.
Legal experts, including representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), hailed the move as a victory for the rule of law.
The fallout from these orders imposed significant costs on the affected firms and the legal system.

History

Historical Context

The 1978 Supreme Court case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti established that corporations have First Amendment rights to engage in political speech, invalidating a Massachusetts law that restricted corporate contributions to ballot initiatives. This ruling laid the groundwork for future cases like Citizens United v. FEC (2010), reinforcing the role of corporate influence in American politics and shaping contemporary debates on campaign finance.

1 of 2

Story summary

The U.S. Department of Justice has stopped defending U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms such as Perkins Coie and WilmerHale.
The orders were deemed unconstitutional because they sought to punish firms for representing clients opposed to Trump's agenda.
The DOJ's decision follows multiple court rulings that upheld the firms' First Amendment rights.
Legal experts, including representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), hailed the move as a victory for the rule of law.
The fallout from these orders imposed significant costs on the affected firms and the legal system.

1 / 2