A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will take up the Trump administration’s challenge to rulings that struck down executive orders aimed at several prominent law firms. The bench brings together two judges appointed by a Democratic president and one selected during Donald Trump’s first term, setting the stage for a closely watched hearing next month.
Circuit Judges Sri Srinivasan and Cornelia Pillard—both chosen during Barack Obama’s presidency—will sit alongside Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, when oral arguments begin on May 14. Panels at the D.C. Circuit are typically assembled at random and revealed about a month before hearings. Their decisions can later be reviewed by the full court, where Democratic appointees currently outnumber Republican ones, though that balance does not necessarily predict outcomes.
Srinivasan, who has served as chief judge since 2020, previously worked at a major law firm and has participated in several high-profile cases, including one upholding legislation that compelled the Chinese parent of TikTok to divest its U.S. operations or face a ban. Rao, known for her administrative law background, has in past disputes sided with the Trump administration, including cases involving press access to White House events and disputes over construction plans at the executive mansion. Pillard, formerly a law professor, has frequently taken positions critical of sweeping policy rollbacks, including dissents related to climate funding and workforce cuts at a federal consumer watchdog.
The appeals stem from executive orders issued last year targeting four law firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. The directives sought to restrict their attorneys’ access to federal buildings and potentially terminate government contracts tied to their clients. The administration accused the firms of using litigation to oppose Trump and promoting diversity policies it viewed as discriminatory.
Each of the firms challenged the orders, and judges blocked them permanently, concluding that the measures violated constitutional protections for free speech and due process. The administration is now attempting to overturn those decisions, arguing that the lower courts ignored legitimate aspects of presidential authority, particularly in areas touching national security.
In response, the firms contend that punitive actions based on legal advocacy or professional associations would undermine the independence of the legal profession. One filing warned that attorneys cannot effectively represent clients if they face broad sanctions for constitutionally protected conduct.
The dispute has rippled across the legal industry. Several other major firms struck agreements last year to avoid similar directives, collectively committing substantial pro bono work aligned with causes supported by Trump.
On the same day the panel hears arguments over the law firm orders, it will also consider a separate appeal involving a Washington attorney whose security clearance was revoked—another case testing the scope of executive power.
The forthcoming hearing is expected to draw intense attention, not only for its political overtones but also for its broader implications for the relationship between government authority and the legal community.
