The U.S. Justice Department has issued subpoenas to 13 major law firms, including four that litigated against the Trump administration's executive orders and nine that previously entered into agreements with the administration. These subpoenas, disclosed on July 17, 2026, demand detailed records and depositions concerning the firms' communications related to the executive orders, specifically mentioning interactions with Boris Epshteyn, a longtime adviser to Donald Trump. The subpoenas also seek communications between the firms and the American Bar Association (ABA) regarding Epshteyn, who reportedly brokered some of the deals where firms pledged over $940 million in pro bono work.
These subpoenas come in the context of a lawsuit filed last year by the ABA, which alleges that the Trump administration's policy unlawfully punishes law firms based on their past legal work, diversity initiatives, and political affiliations. The DOJ stated that the subpoenas are intended to "obtain the documents that Plaintiff has requested," suggesting a strategy to pressure the ABA or counter its discovery requests. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali has not yet ruled on the ABA's motion to compel information from the government or the DOJ's motion to quash the ABA's subpoenas.
Legal ethics experts are divided on whether these subpoenas constitute a breach of the prior deals struck between the nine firms and the Trump administration in spring 2025. The terms of these agreements were vague and largely unwritten, making their enforceability questionable. Firms like Paul, Weiss, Skadden, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Milbank, A&O Shearman, Kirkland & Ellis, Cadwalader, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett were understood to be exempt from punitive government actions. However, some experts, like Scott Cummings from UCLA School of Law, believe the subpoenas could be considered a breach, arguing that the deals aimed to resolve all related disputes. Additionally, the DOJ is seeking to depose the leaders of each subpoenaed firm.
The four firms that previously challenged the executive orders in court and also received subpoenas are Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, and Susman Godrey. The administration's appeal in those cases is pending. The Justice Department, in its filing, urged Judge Ali to reject the ABA's demand for similar information from the White House, arguing that the ABA should obtain it from its own members or the law firms involved. The subpoenas are seen by some as a "bullying tactic" to pressure firms to influence the ABA to drop its lawsuit.
