The U.S. Justice Department has served subpoenas on 14 major law firms, demanding records and sworn depositions as part of a growing legal clash between the Trump administration and the country’s largest attorney membership organization, according to court documents filed Friday in Washington federal court.
The subpoenas, which were disclosed publicly through the court filing, require the firms to turn over communications tied to White House executive orders that either targeted those firms or prompted them to reach agreements with President Donald Trump to sidestep his directives. The records sought include any communications involving Boris Epshteyn, a longtime Trump adviser, dating back to the beginning of the president’s second term.
Investigators are also asking the firms to provide any communications they may have had with the American Bar Association specifically regarding Epshteyn. It remains unclear at this point whether any of the firms plan to legally challenge the subpoenas.
The Justice Department revealed the subpoenas in the context of a lawsuit filed by the ABA, which contends that the Trump administration has been unlawfully targeting law firms because of their past legal representation, internal diversity programs, and political associations. The ABA argues the policy harms its members.
In its court filing, the DOJ urged U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to deny the ABA’s request for similar documents directly from the White House. The department argued the ABA should instead be required to “seek this information from its own members, or the law firms at issue, rather than going directly to the White House.”
The DOJ stated in its filing that its subpoenas to the law firms are intended to “obtain the documents that Plaintiff has requested.”
Representatives for the ABA, the DOJ, and the Trump White House all declined to offer immediate comment. Spokespersons for the law firms named in the subpoenas also did not respond to requests for comment.
The ABA’s lawsuit is drawing new attention to the administration’s broader effort against high-profile law firms, and it could place firms that previously settled with the administration in a difficult spot as both sides battle over potential evidence in the case.
Four law firms that took legal action against the administration last year successfully obtained permanent court orders blocking the executive orders that had targeted them. The administration’s appeal of those rulings remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which heard oral arguments in May.
