{"id":156140,"date":"2026-07-09T13:56:34","date_gmt":"2026-07-09T21:56:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/09\/the-aba-wants-the-white-houses-receipts-on-the-biglaw-executive-orders\/"},"modified":"2026-07-09T13:56:34","modified_gmt":"2026-07-09T21:56:34","slug":"the-aba-wants-the-white-houses-receipts-on-the-biglaw-executive-orders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/09\/the-aba-wants-the-white-houses-receipts-on-the-biglaw-executive-orders\/","title":{"rendered":"The ABA Wants The White House\u2019s Receipts On The Biglaw Executive Orders"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 2025, Steve Bannon said the quiet part out loud, on his own podcast<\/a>, when it came to the Trump administration\u2019s goals when issuing (unconstitutional) executive orders aimed at Biglaw firms. Bannon said of the targeted firms, \u201cWhat we are trying to do is put you out of business and bankrupt you.\u201d Now the ABA wants to know how much of that he was really involved with.<\/p>\n

In a Tuesday filing<\/a> in American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President<\/em>, the ABA asked U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to force the White House to hand over internal communications, including those involving Bannon and Boris Epshteyn, Trump\u2019s personal senior counsel. According to reporting, Epshteyn connected two firms that struck deals with the administration, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, with the Commerce Department on matters related to U.S. trade negotiations.<\/p>\n

The ABA sued the administration back in June 2025, arguing that the executive orders, plus the wave of \u201cdeals\u201d that spooked firms into capitulating before an order ever came for them, amounted to a coordinated policy, not isolated grievances against a handful of firms. As noted when the suit was first filed<\/a>, the ABA had reason to worry about standing before it ever got to the merits, given this particular Supreme Court\u2019s track record on associational standing.<\/p>\n

Those worries didn\u2019t pan out, at least not yet. In April, Judge Ali rejected the DOJ\u2019s motion to dismiss, finding the ABA had plausibly alleged a real threat of retaliation and a documented chilling effect on its members, including instances of firms declining pro bono work seen as adverse to the administration. That ruling is what put the case into the discovery fight now playing out over Bannon, Epshteyn, and the rest of the internal White House record.<\/p>\n

The underlying grievance predates the ABA suit by months, of course. Four firms \u2014 Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey \u2014 fought their individual executive orders in court and won<\/a>, repeatedly, sweeping the district court level on First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment grounds. Nine other firms didn\u2019t fight, cutting deals worth roughly $940 million in pro bono commitments<\/a> to Trump-approved causes instead. And DOJ\u2019s posture toward the winning firms has been anything but consistent: in March, the department dropped its appeals<\/a> of those district court losses, only to reverse course about two weeks later and go back to defending the orders<\/a>, this time citing the nine capitulating firms as proof the policy worked exactly as designed.<\/p>\n

The DOJ, as you\u2019d expect, does not want to produce any of this. The government has argued the requests raise separation-of-powers concerns and are overbroad, and last week, it asked a federal court in New York to block the ABA from deposing Epshteyn altogether. Whether that gambit works is now Judge Ali\u2019s problem; DOJ\u2019s response to the ABA\u2019s Tuesday brief is due July 17.<\/p>\n

Earlier:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bannon Drops Bombshell: Trump Wants To Cripple Elite Law Firms<\/a><\/p>\n

Trump Sued By ABA Over\u2026 Gestures At Months Of Lawlessness<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Trump Is 0-4 Defending His Biglaw Executive Orders<\/a><\/p>\n

Biglaw\u2019s Craven Capitulation To Trump Now Under Congressional Scrutiny<\/a><\/p>\n

Playing The Blame Game Over The Biglaw Trump Deals<\/a><\/p>\n

DOJ Drops Defense Of Biglaw Executive Orders, Leaving Capitulating Firms Holding $940 Million Bag<\/a><\/p>\n

DOJ\u2019s Defense Of Trump\u2019s Biglaw Executive Orders: Look How Many Firms We Scared Into Compliance!<\/a><\/p>\n

The Trump Administration\u2019s Best Argument For Its Biglaw EOs Is That You Just Have To Trust The President<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post The ABA Wants The White House\u2019s Receipts On The Biglaw Executive Orders<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2025, Steve Bannon said the quiet part out loud, on his own podcast<\/a>, when it came to the Trump administration\u2019s goals when issuing (unconstitutional) executive orders aimed at Biglaw firms. Bannon said of the targeted firms, \u201cWhat we are trying to do is put you out of business and bankrupt you.\u201d Now the ABA wants to know how much of that he was really involved with.<\/p>\n

In a Tuesday filing<\/a> in American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President<\/em>, the ABA asked U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to force the White House to hand over internal communications, including those involving Bannon and Boris Epshteyn, Trump\u2019s personal senior counsel. According to reporting, Epshteyn connected two firms that struck deals with the administration, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, with the Commerce Department on matters related to U.S. trade negotiations.<\/p>\n

The ABA sued the administration back in June 2025, arguing that the executive orders, plus the wave of \u201cdeals\u201d that spooked firms into capitulating before an order ever came for them, amounted to a coordinated policy, not isolated grievances against a handful of firms. As noted when the suit was first filed<\/a>, the ABA had reason to worry about standing before it ever got to the merits, given this particular Supreme Court\u2019s track record on associational standing.<\/p>\n

Those worries didn\u2019t pan out, at least not yet. In April, Judge Ali rejected the DOJ\u2019s motion to dismiss, finding the ABA had plausibly alleged a real threat of retaliation and a documented chilling effect on its members, including instances of firms declining pro bono work seen as adverse to the administration. That ruling is what put the case into the discovery fight now playing out over Bannon, Epshteyn, and the rest of the internal White House record.<\/p>\n

The underlying grievance predates the ABA suit by months, of course. Four firms \u2014 Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey \u2014 fought their individual executive orders in court and won<\/a>, repeatedly, sweeping the district court level on First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment grounds. Nine other firms didn\u2019t fight, cutting deals worth roughly $940 million in pro bono commitments<\/a> to Trump-approved causes instead. And DOJ\u2019s posture toward the winning firms has been anything but consistent: in March, the department dropped its appeals<\/a> of those district court losses, only to reverse course about two weeks later and go back to defending the orders<\/a>, this time citing the nine capitulating firms as proof the policy worked exactly as designed.<\/p>\n

The DOJ, as you\u2019d expect, does not want to produce any of this. The government has argued the requests raise separation-of-powers concerns and are overbroad, and last week, it asked a federal court in New York to block the ABA from deposing Epshteyn altogether. Whether that gambit works is now Judge Ali\u2019s problem; DOJ\u2019s response to the ABA\u2019s Tuesday brief is due July 17.<\/p>\n

Earlier:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bannon Drops Bombshell: Trump Wants To Cripple Elite Law Firms<\/a><\/p>\n

Trump Sued By ABA Over\u2026 Gestures At Months Of Lawlessness<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Trump Is 0-4 Defending His Biglaw Executive Orders<\/a><\/p>\n

Biglaw\u2019s Craven Capitulation To Trump Now Under Congressional Scrutiny<\/a><\/p>\n

Playing The Blame Game Over The Biglaw Trump Deals<\/a><\/p>\n

DOJ Drops Defense Of Biglaw Executive Orders, Leaving Capitulating Firms Holding $940 Million Bag<\/a><\/p>\n

DOJ\u2019s Defense Of Trump\u2019s Biglaw Executive Orders: Look How Many Firms We Scared Into Compliance!<\/a><\/p>\n

The Trump Administration\u2019s Best Argument For Its Biglaw EOs Is That You Just Have To Trust The President<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In 2025, Steve Bannon said the quiet part out loud, on his own podcast, when it came to the Trump administration\u2019s goals when issuing (unconstitutional) executive orders aimed at Biglaw firms. Bannon said of the targeted firms, \u201cWhat we are trying to do is put you out of business and bankrupt you.\u201d Now the ABA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":156118,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-156140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-7MnWPm.jpg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156140","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=156140"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156140\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/156118"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}