Four prominent law firms that challenged executive orders issued by President Donald Trump will make coordinated appeals arguments on the same day before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the court has ruled. The decision marks a significant procedural development in a series of high-profile cases involving constitutional challenges to actions taken by the Trump administration.
Coordinated Appeals Schedule Announced
On Friday, the D.C. Circuit set a consolidated timeline for oral arguments in lawsuits filed by
Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, four of the nation’s leading law firms. According to the court’s order, the briefing period will run from March 6 through April 10, after which all four firms will argue their appeals on the same date and before the same judicial panel.
Although the cases will be heard together for oral argument, the court has allowed each firm to file separate briefs. The judges acknowledged that while the underlying legal challenges share common themes, they also involve
distinct factual circumstances and legal claims that warrant individualized briefing rather than a single consolidated document.
Background: Executive Orders and Constitutional Challenges
These lawsuits stem from a series of executive orders issued by President Trump between March and April 2025 that targeted
major law firms for what the administration viewed as adversarial legal work and political affiliations. The orders sought to restrict access to federal buildings and classified information for lawyers at the targeted firms, suspended security clearances, and instructed federal agencies to review and potentially terminate government contracts held by the firms’ clients.
Perkins Coie’s case is among the most notable. Trump’s March 6, 2025 order barred the firm from government work and accused it of “dishonest and dangerous activity” related to its legal representation of political opponents. That order also suspended the security clearances of its attorneys and blocked them from federal offices.
Similar executive orders followed for WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. Each firm filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of the orders.
District Courts Block Enforcement of Orders
In all four cases, federal judges granted temporary restraining orders and then permanent injunctions, blocking enforcement of the executive directives. The courts concluded that the government’s actions likely violated key constitutional protections, including the
First Amendment right to free speech and the right to counsel of choice, due process rights, and the constitutional separation of powers.
The Perkins Coie injunction, for example, was upheld on May 2, 2025, when the district court ruled that the executive order unconstitutionally targeted the firm’s protected legal advocacy and violated core constitutional freedoms. Other courts reached similar conclusions in the cases involving WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey.
Government Appeals and Court Scheduling
After these rulings, the Justice Department appealed the decisions to the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the president’s orders were within the scope of executive authority. The administration has maintained that these measures were justified responses to actions it views as adversarial or retaliatory legal activities.
The D.C. Circuit’s decision to set a unified oral argument date reflects both
efficiency and judicial management in handling multiple appeals on closely related legal questions. At the same time, permitting separate briefing respects the individual disputes and legal issues raised by each firm’s case.
The court also agreed that the oral arguments in these cases will take place before the same panel hearing another related dispute: the appeal in the case of national security lawyer Mark Zaid, who was targeted by a similar executive order that revoked his security clearance. This approach underscores the judiciary’s effort to address the spectrum of legal challenges tied to the Trump administration’s executive actions.
Legal and Constitutional Stakes
Legal analysts say these consolidated appeals have major implications for presidential authority, attorney professional independence, and constitutional rights. Critics of the executive orders have argued that they represent unlawful retaliation against lawyers and firms for engaging in constitutionally protected litigation. They contend that such retaliation chills vigorous legal advocacy and could set dangerous precedents for executive overreach.
Supporters of the government’s position argue that the executive branch should have broad authority to manage access to sensitive information and federal facilities, particularly where national security concerns are invoked. However, opponents counter that these powers are not unlimited and must be balanced against constitutional protections.
Broader Legal Context
The Trump administration’s actions against law firms are part of a broader pattern of litigation involving executive power and accountability. In recent years, courts have played a central role in adjudicating disputes over presidential actions, including challenges to executive orders involving immigration, regulatory authority, and other controversial policies.
The appeals now before the D.C. Circuit will be closely watched by legal experts, lawmakers, and professional organizations for their potential to clarify the limits of executive authority and reaffirm the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights.
Find top legal jobs faster with
LawCrossing. Access thousands of attorney positions from law firms, corporations, and government employers nationwide. Start your confidential job search today and take the next step in your legal career.
