2026-03-02T20:03:00-0500 / CBS新闻
华盛顿 — 根据法院文件，司法部周一表示将不再为特朗普总统针对几家知名律所的行政令进行法律辩护，此举标志着政府立场的重大转变。
在向华盛顿特区美国上诉法院提交的文件中，特朗普政府称将自愿撤回对下级法院判决的上诉。此前下级法院裁定，针对四家律所的行政令违宪。涉事律所包括：Perkins Coie（柏克德律师事务所）；Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP（威尔默·卡特律师事务所）；Susman Godfrey（苏斯曼·戈弗雷律师事务所）和Jenner & Block（詹纳&布洛克律师事务所）。
尽管特朗普政府不再为这四家律所的行政令辩护，但成功从另外九家律所获取了数亿美元的免费法律服务。这些律所与白宫达成协议，以避免遭受针对自身的指令打击。
威尔默·卡特律师事务所发言人在声明中表示：”政府决定撤回上诉显然是正确的。我们从一开始就明确，对非法行政令的质疑是为了捍卫客户选择律师的宪法权利和法治原则。我们很高兴这些基本原则得到了维护。”
苏斯曼·戈弗雷律师事务所称，特朗普政府”屈服了”，这场诉讼不仅是针对律所的攻击，更是对法治的挑战。该所强调：”我们不仅为自己而战，更为宪法保障的自由、依赖法律平等正义的法律职业，以及那些拒绝向试图压制他们的政府（无论是否为律师）妥协的美国公民而战。我们没有寻求这场斗争，但也没有退缩，我们赢了。”
詹纳&布洛克律师事务所表示：”政府撤回上诉的决定使四位联邦法官的裁决永久生效——针对包括本所在内的律所的行政令均属违宪。这再次印证了詹纳一个多世纪以来的立场：我们将始终热情捍卫客户利益，永不妥协。”
司法部未就此置评。
这一系列案件源于特朗普去年3月和4月签署的一系列行政令，目的是惩罚几家因特定雇佣和法律工作而被针对的律所。
其中一项针对保罗·威斯律师事务所（Paul, Weiss）的行政令在该所承诺提供数千万美元公益法律服务后被撤销。该行政令特别针对曾在该所工作、监督特朗普竞选前财务调查的Mark Pomerantz。
所有被制裁的律所均在客户权益、联邦建筑准入和员工安全许可方面受到影响。
具体而言：
- Perkins Coie因代表希拉里·克林顿参与2016年总统竞选及雇佣曾与英国前间谍合作的研究机构而被针对，该机构曾参与制作” Steele档案”（涉及特朗普通俄门的关键文件）。
- WilmerHale和Jenner & Block的律师曾参与调查俄罗斯干预2016年大选。其中，特别检察官Robert Mueller（罗伯特·穆勒）曾在威尔默·卡特工作，Andrew Weissmann（安德鲁·魏斯曼）曾受雇于詹纳&布洛克，二人已于数年前离职。
- 苏斯曼·戈弗雷因代表Dominion Voting Systems起诉福克斯新闻（Fox News）诽谤，索赔7.87亿美元（2023年达成和解），而福克斯曾传播2020年大选不实言论。
部分律所还参与了挑战特朗普第二任期议程的诉讼，包括他试图削减为跨性别青少年提供医疗服务机构的联邦资金，以及解雇联邦监察长等举措。
四家律所均起诉特朗普政府，四位联邦法官均以压倒性优势支持原告，裁定行政令违反第一、第五和第六修正案。所有被起诉的行政令均因诉讼未能生效。
一位联邦法官在支持Perkins Coie的裁决中指出，针对该所的行政令传递了”律师必须服从党派路线，否则将被惩罚”的信息。在支持苏斯曼·戈弗雷的裁决中，法官认为政府”试图利用其巨大权力来 dictate 律所的立场选择”，这威胁到美国法律代表制度的基础。
法官Loren AliKhan明确指出，针对苏斯曼·戈弗雷的行政令源于”个人报复”。
另一家律所Covington & Burling的律师因参与前特别检察官Jack Smith对特朗普的两次起诉而被撤销安全许可，Smith的案件在特朗普当选连任后被撤销。
这些行政令引发了法律界的分裂，多家知名律所通过与白宫达成协议自保。除法律诉讼外，特朗普还撤销了批评者的安全许可，司法部起诉前FBI局长James Comey和纽约总检察长Letitia James，后因检察官任命违规被联邦法官驳回。
司法部撤回上诉正值其应对600多起挑战特朗普议程的诉讼案。此前司法部曾拒绝回应美国律师协会的诉讼（涉及切断家庭暴力援助项目资金），但联邦法官已裁定支持该协会，政府未上诉。
美国律师协会曾于6月提起类似诉讼，指控白宫”利用行政权力胁迫律所放弃客户、事业和政策立场”，违反第一修正案。司法部原定于周二在华盛顿联邦法院为该诉讼辩护，但最终撤回上诉。
这一系列法律行动反映出特朗普政府在第二任期内对司法系统的持续施压，而司法部此次立场转变被法律界视为对法治原则的重大让步。
Justice Department moves to drop defense of Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms
2026-03-02T20:03:00-0500 / CBS News
Washington — The Justice Department on Monday moved to drop its legal defense of President Trump’s executive orders that targeted several high-profile law firms, according to court filings.
In papers filed with the U.S. appeals court in Washington, D.C., the Trump administration said it would be voluntarily dismissing appeals of lower court decisions that found the executive orders punishing the four firms were unconstitutional. The firms are Perkins Coie; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; Susman Godfrey and Jenner & Block.
While the Trump administration will no longer defend the executive orders against the four firms, it successfully extracted hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services from nine others thatcutdeals with the White House in an effort to head-off directives targeting them.
“The government’s decision to dismiss its appeal is clearly the right one,” a spokesperson for WilmerHale said in a statement. “As we said from the outset, our challenge to the unlawful Executive Order was about defending our clients’ constitutional right to retain the counsel of their choosing and defending the rule of law. We are pleased these foundational principles were vindicated.”
Susman Godrey said the Trump administration “capitulated,” bringing to an end what it said was an attack not only on the firm, but also the rule of law.
“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,” the firm said. “We did not seek this fight, but neither did we run from it. And we won.”
Jenner & Block said in a statement: “The government’s decision to withdraw its appeals makes permanent the rulings of four federal judges that the executive orders targeting law firms, including Jenner & Block, were unconstitutional. This chapter has once again confirmed what has been true of Jenner for more than a century — we will always zealously advocate for our clients and put them first, without compromise.”
The Justice Department declined to comment.
The cases arose out of a series of executive orders that Mr. Trump signed in March and April of last year that sought to punish several law firms because of certain hires and legal work.
The president rescindedone of the measures, against Paul, Weiss, after the firm pledged to provide tens of millions of dollars in pro bono work to support White House initiatives. Mr. Trump’s directive had singled out the work of Mark Pomerantz, who previously worked at the firm and who oversaw an investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office into Mr. Trump’s finances before he became president.
Each of the orders targeted the law firms’ clients, access to federal buildings and officials, and security clearances held by their employees.
In the case of Perkins Coie, Mr. Trump attacked the firm because of its representation of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign and hiring of a research firm that retained former British spy Christopher Steele, who produced the infamous “Steele Dossier.”
WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, meanwhile, had employed lawyers who worked on the Justice Department’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Among those was Robert Mueller, the special counsel who led the probe, at WilmerHale, and Andrew Weissmann, who was hired by Jenner & Block. Both left their respective firms several years ago.
The fourth firm that Mr. Trump sought to sanction, Susman Godfrey, represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News, which stemmed from unfounded claims about the 2020 election that were aired by the network. Fox and Dominion reached a $787 million settlement agreement in 2023.
Some of the law firms had also been involved in litigation challenging aspects of Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda, including his attempt to withhold federal funds from medical institutions that provide medical treatments to young people experiencing gender dysphoria and his firings of inspector generals across the federal government.
The four firms each sued the Trump administration, and four different federal judges ruled overwhelmingly in their favor, finding the measures violated the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. None of the executive orders took effect as a result of the litigation.
In a decision siding with Perkins Coie, a federal judge found that the executive order targeting the firm sent the message that “lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.” In ruling for Susman Godfrey, another judge found that the government “sought to use its immense power to dictate the positions that law firms may or may not take,” which threatened the foundation of legal representation in the U.S.
The judge, Loren AliKhan, said that the executive order was the result of a “personal vendetta” against Susman Godfrey.
At another firm, Covington & Burling, one of its lawyers, who worked on former special counsel Jack Smith’s two prosecutions of Mr. Trump, had his security clearance targeted. Smith’s cases against the president were dropped after he was elected to a second term.
The president’s executive orders led to a divide among the legal community, as a number of well-known firms reached agreements with the White House to protect themselves from being punished.
The executive orders that targeted the firms were just one part of a broader campaign by Mr. Trump to go after his perceived political enemies in his second term. The president has also revoked security clearances and protective details for officials who have criticized him, and the Justice Department obtained federal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Those criminal cases, however, were dropped after a federal judge found the prosecutor who secured the indictments was improperly appointed.
The Justice Department’s decision to end its appeals in the cases involving the law firms also comes as it responds to more than 600 lawsuits that challenge many aspects of Mr. Trump’s agenda. Government lawyers have walked away from several of the cases, including one brought by the American Bar Association after the Justice Department cut off grants for training and support programs that aim to help domestic violence and sexual assault survivors.
A federal judge ruled in favor of the organization, and the Trump administration declined to appeal.
The American Bar Association filed a similar legal challenge to the law firm executive orders in June, arguing that the White House “used the vast powers of the Executive Branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like,” in violation of the First Amendment.
The Justice Department was set to argue in favor of dismissing the group’s suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.
发表回复