A District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals panel is set to hear arguments Thursday over the Trump administration’s bid to reinstate executive orders that sought punishing sanctions against four elite law firms over their past representation or employment of perceived political foes of President Donald Trump.  

Four separate district court judges had previously granted permanent restraining orders sought by the four law firms — Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey, Wilmer Hale and Jenner & Block — after determining the EOs were unconstitutional.

Some of the judges derided the White House’s efforts to punish the firms in particularly blistering terms, likening the pressure campaign mounted last year by the Trump administration against ‘Big Law’ as akin to McCarthyism and the ‘Red Scare’ era in American history. 

Staring down similar prospects of facing executive orders that sought to virtually eliminate their interactions with the government, at least nine other elite firms entered into controversial settlements with the Trump administration in exchange for providing pro bono legal services for causes supported by the White House. 

Those settlements, which in sum totaled nearly $1 billion by the White House’s calculation, led to an exodus of high-profile attorneys at several of the firms who said the agreements amounted to capitulation in response to an unlawful intimidation campaign by the Trump administration. 

In March, the Justice Department appeared inclined to drop their appeal of the injunctions and even notified attorneys and the circuit court that it was withdrawing the case. 

Less than 24 hours later, however, the department abruptly reversed course and said it would continue arguing the appeal after multiple news articles described the move as a major victory for the firms that mounted the legal battle. 

It’s unclear whether that back-and-forth will surface in oral arguments Thursday as the law firms seek to convince a three-judge panel to uphold the injunctions — which barred the Trump administration from implementing sanctions that included barring firm attorneys from accessing some federal properties and restricting their security clearances. Several of the firms described in detailed filings how the orders, if implemented, would effectively bankrupt them.  

The administration, however, argued the orders were well within President Trump’s power to issue, and described the district courts’ orders as an impermissible intrusion on the executive branch. 

“This appeal of those sweeping decisions is not about the sanctity of the American law firm; it is about lower courts encroaching on the constitutional power of the President to discuss and address invidious racial discrimination, national security risks, and other problems with certain law firms,” DOJ attorneys said in a court filing in March.