U-turn
The US Department of Justice has renewed its legal battle against several top law firms, appealing rulings that found a series of executive orders targeting them violated their constitutional rights.
Legal Cheek reported yesterday that the DOJ had asked for its appeals against US firms Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey and WilmerHale to be dismissed in a new court filing. However, in a unexpected turn of events, a fresh filing — a “motion to withdraw [the] motion to voluntarily dismiss appeals” — was submitted to the US Court of Appeals for the Columbia Circuit, signalling the Trump administration’s intention to continue pursuing the appeals. No explanation was given for the sudden change of stance.
As reported yesterday, Susman Godfrey, one of the four US firms to challenge the legality of the executive orders, celebrated its short-lived victory following the initial withdrawal of the appeals:
“The Government has capitulated, which is a fitting end to its plainly unconstitutional attack on Susman Godfrey and the rule of law. In doing so, it has abandoned any attempt to defend the indefensible executive order against our firm.”
It continued: “We fought for ourselves, but we fought for bigger things, too: for a Constitution that protects our freedoms; for a legal profession that depends on equal justice under the law; and for the people across this country who refuse to back down in the face of an Administration that seeks to silence and intimidate them — lawyers and non-lawyers alike. We did not seek this fight, but neither did we run from it. And we won…”
In an updated statement released after the administration announced its renewed intention to pursue the appeals, the firm said:
“Yesterday evening, the administration told the court that it gave up and wouldn’t even try to defend its unconstitutional executive orders. Today, it reversed course. Regardless, Susman Godfrey will defend itself and the rule of law — without equivocation.”
The administration now faces a Friday deadline to set out its arguments in each of the appeals.