A U.S. appeals court in Washington heard the Trump-era bid to revive executive orders aimed at four major law firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—for their work, hires, diversity policies, and political ties, arguing the sanctions could bar the firms’ lawyers from federal buildings, strip clients of government contracts, and revoke security clearances.

Several large firms had moved to resolve the dispute preemptively by pledging hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services to causes aligned with the administration, in an attempt to avert sanctions.

The oral-argument outcome could decide whether injunctions blocking the sanctions stay in place or are overturned, letting the administration pursue penalties against the firms.

The arguments touched on whether aggressive enforcement would impinge on zealous representation.

Judge questions focused on whether presidents can revoke security clearances for non-trust/secrecy reasons, with concerns that such rulings may be unreviewable if national security is cited and that political bias could influence access to information.

The panel did not indicate when it would rule after the two-hour hearing, leaving the decision unresolved.

Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli argued that district courts rushed to judgment and overstepped authority, noting the president is subject to the law and must oversee security clearances and discrimination investigations within presidential power.

Kambli emphasized the president’s authority over security clearances and discrimination investigations, arguing district judges overreached.

The phrase about lawmakers “walking on eggshells” reflects the uneasy climate around this dispute.

More than 100 people attended the hearing, underscoring the high-profile nature and potential implications for presidential power and the independence of legal representation.

In March, the Justice Department signaled it might drop the appeal but reversed course within a day, saying it would continue arguing after media coverage framed the move as a victory for the firms.

Some district judges criticized the White House’s pressure campaigns as reminiscent of McCarthyism and the Red Scare, signaling judicial pushback to the administration’s tactics.