The Department of Justice has issued third-party subpoenas targeting nine major law firms that previously reached settlements with the Trump administration over executive order disputes.
The subpoenas demand communications between those firms and Trump’s personal lawyer Boris Epshteyn, a significant escalation in the ongoing legal confrontation.
Deposition notices have also been served on the firm leaders who personally signed the settlement deals with the administration.
The nine firms in question are those that chose to negotiate agreements rather than challenge the administration’s executive orders in court.
Those executive orders had been widely criticised as retaliatory and constitutionally questionable, targeting law firms perceived as adversarial to the administration.
The DOJ action emerges as a side effect of the administration’s legal battle with the American Bar Association, which filed suit against the administration over its legal blacklist campaign.
The ABA’s lawsuit challenged the administration’s use of executive orders to effectively penalise law firms, prompting the broader discovery effort now sweeping up the settling firms.
Bloomberg Law reports that a DOJ spokesperson responded to requests for comment on the subpoenas, though the spokesperson was not named in the report.
The spokesperson’s explanation, rather than clarifying the government’s intentions, has prompted further scrutiny over the legal basis for targeting firms that had already settled.
Critics note the subpoenas create a troubling dynamic in which firms that complied with the administration’s demands now face government demands for their internal communications.
The move raises fundamental questions about whether settlement with the administration provided any genuine legal protection or simply opened firms to further exposure.
Legal observers have pointed out that demanding communications with Epshteyn suggests the DOJ is probing the negotiation process behind the settlements themselves.
The ABA’s decision to challenge the executive orders in court stands in sharp contrast to the approach taken by the nine firms now facing subpoenas.
Firm leaders named in deposition notices face the prospect of testifying about negotiations they likely assumed were confidential and concluded matters.
The broader legal community is watching closely to see whether this latest escalation will deter other firms from seeking similar settlements in the future.