The Trump administration is seeking to keep records related to its investigation into major law firms' employment and diversity practices secret. The dispute comes as transparency groups press for records related to the agency's diversity probe and law firms' commitments to provide free legal work.
The case traces back to March 17, 2025, when then-Acting Chair Andrea Lucas sent requests for information to 20 of the country's largest law firms — including Debevoise & Plimpton, Skadden Arps, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie and Hogan Lovells — warning that their diversity and inclusion policies could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Alongside those letters, the agency set up a dedicated email address, [email protected], to collect whistleblower tips about law firm diversity practices.
Settlements, Secrecy and a Legal Fight Over FOIA Exemptions
By April 2025, the EEOC had announced agreements with four of those firms — Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher and A&O Shearman — but the agency has not disclosed the settlement terms, per the Reuters report. Those four were among nine law firms that ultimately pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal work for causes supported by the White House, a group that also included Skadden Arps, Paul Weiss, Cadwalader, Milbank and Willkie Farr, according to American Oversight. The arrangements allowed the firms to avoid punitive executive orders and regulatory probes in exchange for the pro bono commitments.
The records sought include communications and settlement agreements tied to the EEOC's law firm probe.
Public Citizen's FOIA Lawsuit
The dispute is playing out in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Public Citizen v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, case number 1:25-cv-04457, stems from a FOIA request Public Citizen filed on June 16, 2025, seeking all communications and settlement agreements tied to the March 2025 letters, according to Public Citizen. The organization filed suit after the agency partially denied its request.
Authority Questioned From the Start
The EEOC's initial information requests drew pushback almost immediately. Seven former EEOC officials sent a joint letter on March 18, 2025, challenging Lucas's authority and arguing that no single commissioner could unilaterally change the EEOC's position, according to Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, P.C. At the time, commissioners had been removed by the executive earlier in 2025.
Separately, law students represented by Democracy Forward sued the EEOC in April 2025 over its information requests, alleging the agency improperly demanded personal academic and fellowship records without statutory authority. That suit prompted the EEOC to acknowledge in February 2026 that its demands had been voluntary all along, leading the agency to close the matter, per HR Dive.
Courts Have Already Rejected Related Executive Orders
Not every law firm targeted by the administration chose to settle. In May 2025, federal district judges in Washington struck down executive orders aimed at firms including Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie, ruling that retaliating against firms based on their clients or political causes violated the First Amendment, according to the International Comparative Legal Guides. Those rulings gave some firms a path to fight the administration in court rather than enter pro bono settlement agreements.
American Oversight filed its own FOIA lawsuit against the Departments of Commerce and Justice on October 1, 2026, demanding records on the pro bono arrangements with the nine major firms, citing concerns that the deals could conflict with federal ethics or anti-deficiency laws. Neither the EEOC nor the Justice Department immediately responded to requests for comment, per Reuters.
