In an unusual legal saga, the Trump administration's ongoing assault on major law firms through executive orders and regulatory maneuvers has surfaced as both a peculiar and alarming trend. These legal actions, aimed at prestigious Biglaw firms, claim to penalize them for their client choices, diversity initiatives, or other activities that displease the administration, only to be consistently struck down by courts as unconstitutional.

Despite this, the administration's tactics, though legally flawed, have not been entirely unsuccessful. Several top law firms, including names like Paul Weiss and Skadden, have opted for compliance over confrontation, providing pro bono services to conservative causes in exchange for escaping the administration's crosshairs.

This pattern of aggression and clumsy legal theories from the White House has been met with a uniform judicial response. Courts across the ideological spectrum have dismissed these orders, emphasizing that the president cannot blacklist law firms based on personal grievances. From conservative to liberal judges, the constitutional consensus is clear: the administration's actions against Biglaw are out of bounds.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also took a hit when its investigation into Biglaw's diversity efforts ended without findings of wrongdoing, signaling a tacit acknowledgment of a flawed legal stance. Furthermore, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) faced ridicule from antitrust experts for its baseless claims against law firms participating in diversity certification programs.

Yet, the administration's legal failures have paradoxically resulted in some success. The mere threat of continued legal action has caused even non-targeted firms to scale back on visible diversity and inclusion commitments, rephrasing DEI language and modifying public statements, all in a preemptive move to avoid potential repercussions.

This scenario underscores a broader, unsettling reality: power can operate effectively through intimidation and fear, compelling powerful entities to capitulate even in the absence of a sound legal basis. As the administration remains steadfast in its approach, the legal community watches on, caught between defending legal principles and succumbing to coercive pressures.