Law Firms That 'Groveled' to Trump Scorched as Revenge Bid Dropped

Justice Department backs down on legal battle against firms that represented anti-Trump clients

Published on Mar. 2, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The U.S. Department of Justice has backed down from a monthslong legal battle against prominent law firms that represented anti-Trump clients in the past. This is seen as a victory for the rule of law, according to voting rights attorney Marc Elias, but also a black eye for the law firms that made deals with Trump to avoid similar regulatory action against them.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing tensions between the rule of law and attempts by former President Trump to use the power of the government to punish his political opponents and critics. It raises questions about the willingness of major institutions to stand up to authoritarian tendencies and the long-term consequences for those who compromise their principles.

The details

The Justice Department had been defending a series of executive orders from the Trump administration that targeted prominent law firms that represented anti-Trump clients. However, the department has now backed down from this legal battle, marking a significant victory for the law firms that refused to bow to Trump's demands. The firms that stood their ground can now proceed with government contracts and access buildings, while those that capitulated and collaborated with Trump still have to provide free legal services to him and face questions about their integrity and commitment to the rule of law.

  • The Justice Department backed down on the legal battle on March 3, 2026.

The players

Marc Elias

A voting rights attorney who runs the Elias Law Group and the media outlet Democracy Docket.

Nicolle Wallace

An MSNBC host who discussed the implications of the Justice Department's decision.

Donald Trump

The former U.S. president who attempted to use the power of the government to punish law firms that represented his critics.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Donald Trump will do whatever he can get away with doing, and a lot of it isn't legal. An alarming amount of it is unconstitutional, and he will move on and bully someone else if people stand up to him. Well, why isn't that lesson sort of internalized writ large on the pro-democracy side?”

— Nicolle Wallace, MSNBC Host (MSNBC)

“Today was the day that the law firms that stood up tall and said to Donald Trump, we will not bow down to you. We will not obey. We will not bend the knee. Today is the day that the Department of Justice ... [stopped fighting] the victory that the law firms had against the Department of Justice. And what that means for everyone listening is that the four law firms that stood their ground, they can proceed on and have government contracts and enter buildings and do all of the things that Donald Trump tried to deny them.”

— Marc Elias, Voting Rights Attorney (MSNBC)

“For the 9 or 10 law firms that capitulated and collaborated, they still have to provide free legal services to Donald Trump. They still have to look at themselves in the mirror and explain why they settled a case that wound up getting dismissed, and that the Department of Justice then dropped. They have to explain to their clients why anyone would hire them when they were so cowardly, when they lacked even the basic spine expected of any lawyer, no less one who charges thousands of dollars an hour, and they settled a claim and groveled in the Oval Office rather than standing up to fight.”

— Marc Elias, Voting Rights Attorney (MSNBC)

What’s next

The law firms that stood up to Trump's demands can now proceed with government contracts and access buildings without fear of retaliation, while the firms that capitulated will have to grapple with the consequences of their actions.

The takeaway

This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of institutions and individuals standing up to authoritarian tendencies, even in the face of significant pressure and potential consequences. It highlights the long-term damage that can be done when principles are compromised in the pursuit of short-term gains or to avoid confrontation.