This is Executive Dysfunction, a newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back—and keeps you posted on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team. Click here to receive it in your inbox each week.

From the moment Donald Trump was sworn into office for his second term, he made clear that a major priority of his administration would be pursuing vindictive actions against his perceived enemies. One of the earliest targets of this agenda of retribution: law firms. In his first months in office, Trump signed executive orders that targeted firms that supported DEI, represented the Democratic Party, advocated for liberal causes, or employed prosecutors who had worked on former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign. At least nine other targeted law firms preemptively capitulated, agreeing to provide some $1 billion in pro bono work for causes agreeable to the president. Four decided to push back and sue. Over the course of a year, four separate judges ruled the president’s executive orders were unconstitutional. And this week, for a brief moment, it seemed like the Department of Justice was finally waking up to reality when it moved to dismiss its appeals in these cases.

That lasted less than 24 hours. By Tuesday morning, the Department of Justice submitted a new filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit asking to withdraw its motion to dismiss, which had been filed one day earlier. “Clown show authoritarianism,” Jameel Jaffer, law professor at Columbia University and inaugural director of the school’s Knight First Amendment Institute, commented.

The battle between Big Law and the Trump administration doesn’t immediately come off as being as existential as, say, the legal challenge over the president’s birthright citizenship executive order. But the attacks on large law firms are pernicious, because alongside satisfying Trump’s vindictiveness, they are also actively preventing people from being able to fight for their constitutional rights. As Trump directs federal agencies to cut off federal funding in crucial areas, target immigrants, and fire public servants, law firms play a vital role litigating against the government to remedy these harms. In Trump’s first term, firms spent countless hours representing people pro bono who were threatened by the administration’s policies; this time around, many have shied away from these fights, in no small part because the president strong-armed them into submission. And this week, as the DOJ walked back its motion to dismiss its appeals against four major law firms, the Trump administration reminded us it will stop at nothing to silence those who dare dissent.

To better understand Trump’s strategy in pursuing Big Law and the fallout it has caused, I spoke with Deborah Pearlstein, director of Princeton University’s Law and Public Policy program. Pearlstein has been sharply critical of law firms’ surrender to Trump, arguing that their capitulation “hastens America’s slide from a system of constitutional democracy” to “a regime of fiat akin to those authoritarian governments our country has long stood against.”

Here’s our conversation, lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Shirin Ali: The attack on Big Law seems like one element of the Trump administration’s strategy of taking down people and causes it does not like. It leverages executive authority to change laws and regulations as it pleases, while simultaneously attacking the legal pathways for people to challenge said changes. 

Deborah Pearlstein: I think that’s exactly right. I think it’s an enormously important point and it’s way too often overlooked. The concern about the attacks on these Big Law firms is not about protecting Big Law as such. Every single one of these firms, the firms that made deals with the administration and the firms that fought back against the administration, made an enormous amount of money last year. They’re doing OK. What’s suffering as a result of these attacks: the ability of ordinary people who were on the receiving end of crackdowns to get good representation to fight back.

I think it’s important to view all of the attacks, including on universities, law firms, NGOs, media companies, as one piece challenging potential threats to the administration’s authority. Similarly, the lesson here is that the institutions that have been willing to fight back have the law on their side and have prevailed, at least........

© Slate