2026年3月6日 / 美国东部时间晚上9:40 / CBS新闻
美国司法部周五请求联邦上诉法院推翻下级法院一项裁决，该裁决宣布特朗普总统针对四家主要律师事务所的行政令无效。
这一举措标志着政府立场的180度大转弯。周一，司法部告知华盛顿特区上诉法院，它打算自愿放弃对下级法院裁决的上诉，这些裁决认定特朗普的行政令违宪。但一天后，司法部告知法院，它撤回了该动议，以便最终能够对这些裁决提起上诉。司法部尚未解释其突然转变的原因。
“法院不能告诉总统该说什么，不能告诉总统不该说什么，”政府律师周五写道，“他们不能告诉总统如何处理国家安全许可，也不能干涉总统指示机构调查违反联邦民权法的种族歧视的指令。”
下级法院的裁决源于特朗普去年发布的行政令，这些行政令试图惩罚四家律师事务所——Perkins Coie、WilmerHale、Jenner & Block和Susman Godfrey——因为这些律师事务所雇佣了某些律师并处理了某些案件。
其中一些律师事务所因雇佣了曾与特朗普发生过纠纷的律师而受到特别批评，包括曾参与特别检察官罗伯特·穆勒团队调查2016年俄罗斯干预选举案的人员。行政令还指控这些律师事务所的多元化项目构成种族歧视。
这些措施试图实施相同的制裁，要求政府承包商披露是否雇佣了这些律师事务所，限制这些律师事务所进入联邦建筑和接触官员，并暂停其员工的安全许可。
法官以措辞严厉的裁决推翻了这四项行政令，称其中一项“令人尴尬”，另一项是“长篇大论的指责”。律师事务所辩称，这些行政令违宪地惩罚了他们与政府持不同意见以及维护其客户合法辩护权的行为。
在周五的上诉中，司法部辩称这四项行政令“完全在总统的权力范围内”。政府声称，安全许可的决定由总统决定，联邦机构有权审查公司的雇佣做法。
“下级地区法院不惜一切代价从表面上否定四项行政令的每一条款，却没有考虑其明显符合宪法的方面和适用范围，”司法部在周五的文件中表示，“对这些全面裁决的上诉无关乎美国律师事务所的神圣性，而是关乎下级法院侵犯了总统的宪法权力。”
针对第五家律师事务所Paul Weiss的行政令，在该所承诺为特朗普政府支持的事业提供价值4000万美元的公益法律服务等让步后，白宫已自愿撤销。其他一些律师事务所也预先达成了类似协议。
WilmerHale的一位发言人在回应上诉时告诉CBS新闻：“非法针对独立律师界的行政令已被四名不同的联邦地区法院法官阻止。我们不同意政府决定对这一司法共识提起上诉，我们将自豪地继续为我们的客户和律所辩护。”
其他一些律师事务所批评特朗普政府在表示将放弃这一问题后又改变立场，重新提起上诉。Perkins Coie本周早些时候表示，政府“没有向各方或法院解释其立场转变的原因”。
Susman Godfrey周二在给CBS新闻的声明中表示：“昨天晚上，政府告诉法院它放弃了，甚至不愿试图为其违宪的行政令辩护。今天，它却改变了立场。”
该所表示：“无论如何，Susman Godfrey将坚定不移地捍卫自身和法治。”
DOJ asks appeals court to restore Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms, just 4 days after moving to drop defense
March 6, 2026 / 9:40 PM EST / CBS News
The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal appeals court to overturn a lower court ruling that invalidated President Trump’s executive orders targeting four major law firms.
The move marks an about-face for the government. On Monday, the Justice Department told a D.C.-based appellate court on Monday it intended to voluntarily drop its appeals of lower court rulings that found Mr. Trump’s executive orders unconstitutional. But a day later, the department told the court it was withdrawing that motion so that it could appeal the rulings after all. The department has not explained its sudden change of course.
“Courts cannot tell the President what to say. Courts cannot tell the President what not to say,” the government’s lawyers wrote Friday. “They cannot tell the President how to handle national security clearances. And they cannot interfere with Presidential directives instructing agencies to investigate racial discrimination that violates federal civil rights laws.”
The lower court rulings stemmed from executive orders Mr. Trump issued last year that sought to punish four law firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey — because of lawyers they hired and cases they worked on.
Some of the firms were specifically criticized for hiring attorneys who have tangled with Mr. Trump in the past, including people who worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The orders also alleged that the firms’ diversity programs were a form of racial discrimination.
The measures all attempted to impose the same sanctions, ordering government contractors to disclose if they’ve hired the firms, restricted the firms’ access to federal buildings and officials, and suspended security clearances held by their employees.
Judges struck down the four orders in often-scathing rulings, describing one as “cringe-worthy” and another as a “screed”. The firms had argued the orders unconstitutionally punished them for diverging with the administration and for upholding their clients’ right to legal counsel.
1/1 Skip Ad Continue watching after the ad
In Friday’s appeal, the Justice Department argues the four orders were “well within the Presidential prerogative.” The government asserts that decisions on security clearances are up to the president, and federal agencies are allowed to review companies’ employment practices.
“The district courts below bent over backwards to facially invalidate every section of four Executive Orders without considering their plainly constitutional aspects and applications,” the Justice Department said in its filing Friday. “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.”
An order against a fifth law firm. Paul Weiss, was voluntarily rescinded by the White House after Paul Weiss pledged $40 million worth of pro bono legal services on causes backed by the Trump administration, among other concessions. Some other firms preemptively struck similar deals.
A WilmerHale spokesperson told CBS News in response to the appeal: “The executive orders that unlawfully targeted the independent bar have already been blocked by four different federal district court judges. We disagree with the government’s decision to appeal this judicial consensus, and we will proudly continue to defend our clients and our firm.”
Some of the other firms have criticized the Trump administration for changing course and reviving its appeal after indicating it would drop the issue. Perkins Coie said earlier this week the government had “offered no explanation to either the parties or the court for its reversal.”
Susman Godfrey said in a statement to CBS News on Tuesday: “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 firm said.
发表回复