The Trump administration is abandoning a legal battle to impose an executive order on 4 law firms

The US Department of Justice has withdrawn a legal request to renew President Donald Trump’s orders targeting four prominent law firms over their past legal work, diversity policies and political affiliations.

In a statement filed with the court on Monday, the Justice Department asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to dismiss its appeals of federal judge’s rulings that said the rules violated the rights of law firms under the US Constitution.

The Trump administration faced a Friday deadline to file its appeals in the lawsuits brought by law firms Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey. The filing did not state why the appeals were withdrawn.

“As we have said from the outset, our challenge to the unconstitutional law was about protecting our clients’ constitutional right to counsel of their choice and the protection of the law,” WilmerHale said in a statement.

Jenner & Block said the government’s action reinforces court rulings that Trump’s executive orders are unconstitutional. “Our partnership is proud to represent its clients,” said the company.

The decision to withdraw the appeals marks a significant judicial retreat for Trump, whose orders to punish companies have rattled the legal industry and sparked outcry that the president sought to weaken prosecutorial independence and potential legal challenges to his plan by the private bar.

The administration argued that the executive orders were valid under the president’s broad executive powers.

Susman Godfrey said “the government has already agreed, and it is a fitting end to his unconstitutional attack on Susman Godfrey.”

Perkins Coie said their victory in the lower courts protected “fundamental constitutional freedoms such as freedom of speech, due process and the right to choose lawyers without fear of punishment.”

“In a fitting response to the theatrical expression ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers, [Executive Order] 14230 takes a ‘Let’s kill lawyers we don’t like’ approach, sending a clear message: lawyers must stick to party lines, or else,” Justice Beryl Howell, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote last year when she handed down the Perkins Coie decision.

The White House referred a request for comment on the status of the complaint to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond.

Target diversity, political activity

Trump issued the rules early last year, accusing law firms of engaging in workplace discrimination in the name of diversity and “weaponizing” the justice system against him and his supporters.

The orders sought to prevent the firms from entering government buildings and terminating government contracts held by their clients, revealing the companies’ ties to their legal and political enemies.

Four federal judges — appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents — struck down the orders last year, finding that they violated the companies’ free speech rights and other protections under the Constitution.

“It puts a damper on the entire legal profession, leaving lawyers across the country weighing the need for vigorous representation against the risk of overreaching the federal government,” wrote Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, in the decision in the Jenner & Block case.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, in a statement called the withdrawal of the government’s request “an important victory for the law over Trump’s rule of lawlessness, and a reminder that those who fight oppression are winning.”

Nine prominent law firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis, settled with the White House last year to withdraw or avoid similar actions against them by the administration.

The firms as part of those agreements have pledged to fork out nearly $1 billion in free legal services for reasons agreed to by the White House.

They have defended the agreements by saying that they are in line with their principles.