更新于 2026年3月3日，美国东部时间下午1:43 | 发布于 2026年3月3日，美国东部时间中午12:23 | CNN政治
作者：凯特琳·波兰茨（Katelyn Polantz）、凯特兰·柯林斯（Kaitlan Collins）
据周二上午知情人士透露，美国司法部已告知四位被唐纳德·特朗普总统列为目标的大型律师事务所，撤回与这些事务所进行法庭对抗的决定正在被推翻。
据一位知情人士透露，在宣布对这些事务所撤诉引发特朗普及其高级助手斯蒂芬·米勒的愤怒后，司法部做出了这一决定。
这一反转似乎重新推动了特朗普试图阻止这些事务所因与民主党有联系而无法进入联邦政府机构的努力。
特朗普曾试图利用总统权力阻止这些事务所的律师进入联邦大楼、获取机密信息以及与联邦机构会面——这些都是华盛顿法律工作的主要内容。
这些事务所对行政命令提出了质疑，到目前为止已在法庭上胜诉。
司法部此前一直在对去年针对这四家律师事务所——威尔默·卡特·皮克林·黑尔与多尔律师事务所（Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr）、帕金斯·科伊律师事务所（Perkins Coie）、詹纳&布洛克律师事务所（Jenner & Block）和苏斯曼·戈弗雷律师事务所（Susman Godfrey）——的行政命令被法院撤销的裁决提出上诉。
然而，周一晚间，特朗普政府全面退缩，告知华盛顿特区联邦上诉法院同意撤诉。
但周二上午，这些事务所被告知司法部正在改变主意，并且很快会向华盛顿特区联邦上诉法院提交反映这一计划变更的文件，知情人士向美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）透露。
司法部于周二通知华盛顿特区联邦上诉法院，撤回其愿意结束这场诉讼的决定。
然而，这些律师事务所的律师立即向法院回应称：“在任何情况下，政府这种未经解释的180度大转弯都不应成为延长其辩护期限的理由。”
该巡回法院的法官尚未作出回应。
言论自由倡导组织“个人权利与表达基金会”（Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression，简称FIRE）谴责司法部周二坚持其行政命令，并指出这引发了对针对这些事务所的广泛担忧。
“今天的反转令人尴尬，”FIRE的法律主任威尔·克里利（Will Creeley）表示，“就像我们昨天所说的：这是总统在攻击他的政治对手，这是对我们国家对正义和个人权利承诺的公然违反。24小时后的今天，这一点依然成立。”
周一晚间，这四家律师事务所均发表长篇声明庆祝其胜诉。
它们还重申了对政府的反对，将其视为维护法治的更广泛努力的一部分，并指出华盛顿特区的四名联邦法官裁定特朗普政府试图对这些事务所的华盛顿律师施加的限制违宪。
司法部发言人周二拒置评。
特朗普与“大律所”的较量
政府试图改变大型律师事务所的业务做法，这包括特朗普为解决其自身过去的法律问题而采取的一些最令人震惊的报复行为。
面临行政命令的这些事务所被白宫选中，被指控反对特朗普本人或构成国家安全威胁。
特朗普表示，这些事务所各自都雇佣了调查或反对他的律师，特别是在2016年大选后的特别顾问罗伯特·穆勒调查以及2020年大选之后。
这些行政命令是特朗普政府对几家大型知名律师事务所（其中有数十名杰出律师）发动的更大规模施压运动的一部分。
许多事务所被威胁其律师将失去安全许可、无法进入联邦大楼，并取消与它们代表的主要是企业客户的联邦机构会面——这些都是华盛顿法律工作的主要内容。
其中一些事务所（包括起诉反对行政命令的帕金斯·科伊律师事务所）明确表示，特朗普对一家事务所的反对是一种生存威胁。帕金斯·科伊长期代表民主党，多年前支持了一份现已被推翻的关于俄罗斯与2016年特朗普竞选活动有联系的档案。
这些事务所辩称，如果行政命令在法庭挑战中幸存下来，可能会摧毁它们的客户群，迫使创收合伙人离开，并可能导致业务崩溃。
起诉的四家事务所的共同点是：在华盛顿尤其在诉讼领域有知名业务。
然而，其他面临类似特朗普行政命令威胁的全国性律师事务所与政府达成协议，以避免受到惩罚性行政命令的制裁。
许多事务所同意改变其客户选择策略，特别是在公益法律服务方面，将政治倾向从自由派转向更保守的方向。
几家知名事务所，包括保尔·威斯律师事务所（Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison）和柯克兰&埃利斯律师事务所（Kirkland & Ellis），在行业内被称为“投降的事务所”，因为它们公开宣布与特朗普政府达成协议。
苏斯曼·戈弗雷律师事务所在周一晚间的声明中暗示了这种动态，称“政府已经投降，这是对其明显违宪攻击的恰当结局。”
特朗普的外部顾问鲍里斯·埃普斯坦（Boris Epshteyn）曾与几家达成协议的律师事务所进行谈判，他周日与总统一同乘坐空军一号从棕榈滩飞往华盛顿特区。
埃普斯坦参与这些协议最近引发了国会山民主党人的调查，这一调查可能会持续数月，尤其是在上诉案出现反转之后。
周一发布的律师事务所声明中，它们欢呼自己取得了明确无疑的胜利。其中一些事务所周二上午表示将继续在法庭上为自己辩护。
“当然，当总统因我们代表的客户和秉持的价值观而试图惩罚和恐吓我们时，我们进行了辩护，”苏斯曼·戈弗雷律师事务所在周一晚间的声明中表示。
苏斯曼·戈弗雷曾代表投票机公司Dominion在2020年大选后起诉特朗普相关人士和福克斯新闻。福克斯新闻诽谤诉讼案达成了具有里程碑意义的和解，这家右翼媒体同意支付7.87亿美元。
选择起诉的四家事务所去年不得不迅速将自己重新塑造为政府的对手，而不是继续作为与行政部门有内部联系的事务所。
“政府决定驳回其上诉显然是正确的，”四家事务所中规模最大的威尔默·黑尔律师事务所（Wilmer Hale）在周一晚间的声明中表示。
该事务所有穆勒调查特朗普的办公室成员。“正如我们从一开始所说的，我们对非法行政命令的质疑是为了捍卫我们客户选择律师的宪法权利和捍卫法治。我们很高兴这些基本原则得到了证实，”威尔默·黑尔的声明称。
詹纳&布洛克律师事务所（Jenner & Block）是一家芝加哥创立的律所，拥有庞大的华盛顿监管和诉讼业务，且其前合伙人曾参与穆勒调查，该所在周一的声明中指出，华盛顿特区的四名不同法官裁定行政命令违宪。
尽管行政命令在法庭上未获通过，但它们已广泛削弱了美国大型律所公开反对政府和代表进步事业的意愿。
对小型律所的影响
例如，拜登和奥巴马政府时期的司法部顶级律师也发现，在大型律所获得或保住职位变得更加困难，这在华盛顿以往的政府更迭中通常会出现，一些人转而创办小型白领律所。
尽管对大型律所采取了上述做法，司法部在法庭上仍坚定地寻求撤销律师马克·扎伊德（Mark Zaid）的安全许可。扎伊德经营着一家以自己名字命名的小型律所，经常代表政府举报人。扎伊德在华盛顿特区的下级法院赢得了一起针对特朗普行政行动的诉讼，但司法部提起了上诉。
扎伊德注意到司法部撤销了对四家较大律所的诉讼，周一表示：“我的角色没有不同。我是一名代表客户的律师，但我却因为只是在履行保护法治的职责而受到针对。”
扎伊德的案件仍将在未来几周由华盛顿特区联邦上诉法院审理。
“任何总统都无权在没有适当正当程序的情况下广泛针对或惩罚群体，即使是以国家安全为幌子，”扎伊德的律师阿贝·洛厄尔（Abbe Lowell）在周一的声明中表示。
本文已更新并补充更多细节。
Trump admin asked a court to drop court fights against law firms tied to Democrats. Now it’s changing its mind
Updated Mar 3, 2026, 1:43 PM ET | Published Mar 3, 2026, 12:23 PM ET | CNN Politics
By Katelyn Polantz, Kaitlan Collins
The Justice Department has told four large law firms targeted by President Donald Trump that its decision to withdraw from court fights with them is being reversed, according to people familiar with the change on Tuesday morning.
That decision came after the announcement about dropping the cases against the firms drew the ire of Trump and his top aide Stephen Miller, according to a person familiar with the situation.
The reversal appears to re-up Trump’s attempts to try to block the firms from federal government access over their ties to Democrats.
Trump had attempted to use the powers of the presidency to prevent the firms’ lawyers from accessing federal buildings, securing classified information and meeting with federal agencies — all mainstays of Washington-based legal work.
The firms had challenged the executive orders and have so far won in court.
The Justice Department was appealing the judges’ rulings striking down executive orders placed on the four firms — Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr; Perkins Coie; Jenner & Block; and Susman Godfrey — last year.
On Monday night, however, the Trump administration retreated in full, telling the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals it agreed to drop the cases.
Yet the firms were told Tuesday morning the department was changing its mind and filings reflecting the change of plans would be sent to the DC Circuit soon after, people familiar with the plan told CNN.
The Justice Department notified the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday it was withdrawing its willingness to end the fight.
Lawyers for the law firms hit back, however, telling the court, “Under no circumstances should the government’s unexplained about-face provide a basis for an extension of its brief.”
Judges from the circuit haven’t yet responded.
The free speech advocacy group the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression condemned the Justice Department digging in on its executive orders on Tuesday, and capturing the broader concern over the targeting of the firms.
“Today’s reversal is an embarrassment,” Will Creeley, FIRE’s legal director, said. “Like we said yesterday: This is the president going after his political opponents, a plain and simple violation of our nation’s commitment to justice and individual rights. That’s still true 24 hours later.”
On Monday night, all four law firms issued lengthy statements celebrating their wins.
They also reiterated their opposition to the administration as part of a broader effort to protect the rule of law, and noted four federal judges in DC had called the restrictions that the Trump administration tried to place on the firms’ Washington lawyers unconstitutional.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Tuesday.
Trump vs Big Law
The administration’s fight to change the business approach of major law firms has included some of the most shocking attempts at retribution by Trump for his own past legal issues.
The firms that had faced executive orders were singled out by the White House as being in opposition to Trump himself or national security threats.
Each of the firms, Trump said, had employed lawyers who had investigated or opposed him, especially in the special counsel investigation of Robert Mueller after the 2016 election and after the 2020 election.
The executive orders were part of a larger pressure campaign the Trump White House waged against several large and well-known law firms with dozens of prominent lawyers.
Many were threatened with the loss of security clearances for its lawyers, blocked access to federal buildings and canceled meetings with executive branch agencies that the firms had on behalf of their clients, which are largely corporations. Those points of access to the federal government are all mainstays of Washington-based legal work.
Some — including Perkins Coie, which had sued to fight the executive order — made clear Trump’s opposition to a firm was an existential threat. Perkins Coie had long represented the Democratic Party and years ago backed a now-discredited dossier on Russian ties to the 2016 Trump campaign.
The firms argued that the executive orders, if they had survived in court challenges, had the potential to zap the firms’ client bases, force out business-generating partners and potentially shudder the businesses.
The four firms that sued had one thing in common: well-known work in Washington, especially in litigation.
Yet other national law firms under threat of similar Trump executive orders cut deals with the administration to stave off punishing executive orders.
Many agreed to change their approach to the clients they would take, especially by shifting the political leanings in the pro bono work they were willing to do, from liberal causes to more conservative ones.
Several prominent firms, including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Kirkland & Ellis, became known as “the capitulating firms” across the industry, after publicly announcing deals with the Trump administration.
Susman Godfrey’s statement Monday night hinting at this dynamic, saying “The Government has capitulated, which is a fitting end to its plainly unconstitutional attack.”
Boris Epshteyn, an outside adviser to Trump, who previously negotiated with several law firms that cut deals, flew with the president on Air Force One on Sunday from Palm Beach to Washington, DC.
Ephsteyn’s involvement in the deals has recently prompted inquiries on Capitol Hill from Democrats, which could continue for months, especially now with the reversal on the appeals.
Statements from the law firms Monday cheered what they believed were unequivocal wins. Some of the firms said Tuesday morning they would continue to defend themselves in court.
“Of course we defended ourselves when the President sought to punish and intimidate us because of the clients we represent and the values we hold,” the firm Susman Godfrey said in its statement Monday night.
Susman Godfrey had sued Trump contacts and Fox News after the 2020 election on behalf of the voting machine company Dominion. The Fox News defamation lawsuit resulted in a landmark settlement where the right-wing media outlet agreed to pay $787 million.
The four firms that chose to sue had to quickly recast themselves last year as adversaries to the administration, rather than continuing to hold themselves out as the types of firms with insider ties to the executive branch.
“The government’s decision to dismiss its appeal is clearly the right one,” Wilmer Hale, the largest of the four firms, said in a statement Monday night.
The firm had employed members of Mueller’s office that investigated Trump. “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,” Wilmer Hale’s statement said.
Jenner & Block, a Chicago-founded firm with large Washington regulatory and litigation practices and a former partner who had worked on the Mueller investigation, noted in a statement on Monday that four different judges in DC’s district court ruled the executive orders unconstitutional.
Though the executive orders haven’t survived in court, they have widely curtailed large American law firms’ willingness to oppose the administration and represent progressive causes publicly.
Effects on small firms
Top Justice Department lawyers from the Biden and Obama administrations, for instance, have also found more difficulty in landing or staying at large law firms, as would be typical after prior administration changeovers in Washington, with some starting their own small white collar firms instead.
Despite the approach to the large law firms, the Justice Department has been unwavering in court seeking the ability to pull the security clearance of lawyer Mark Zaid, who runs a small self-named firm and regularly represents government whistleblowers. Zaid won a case at the lower court in DC challenging a Trump executive action targeting him, but the Justice Department appealed.
Zaid, noting the Justice Department dropping the cases against the four larger law firms, said on Monday, “My role is no different. I’m a lawyer representing clients yet I’ve been targeted for just doing my job protecting the rule of law.”
Zaid’s case still is set to be heard by the DC Circuit in the coming weeks.
“No president is permitted to broadly target or punish groups without appropriate due process, even under the guise of national security,” Zaid’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement on Monday.
This story has been updated with additional details.
（此为图片占位符，实际内容需按原文链接替换）