According to a watchdog group dedicated to transparency, the Trump administration is allegedly breaching the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by withholding documents about agreements made with nine major law firms. These firms have committed to providing nearly $1 billion in free legal services to the government.

American Oversight, the watchdog group, filed a 16-page complaint on Thursday, claiming that the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Justice have consistently failed to disclose requested information under FOIA regarding these contentious agreements.

This lawsuit emerges amid a significant dual strategy by the Trump administration concerning the influence and role of major law firms within the upper levels of government. On one side, President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders and memorandums aimed at restricting these firms’ governmental access—by terminating contracts, denying attorney entry to government facilities, and blacklisting associated businesses. Conversely, nine law firms circumvented these measures by agreeing to deliver extensive pro bono legal services.

The focus of American Oversight is on the extensive arrangements involving firms such as Paul Weiss, Skadden, Willkie Farr, Milbank, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, Kirkland & Ellis, A&O Shearman, and Cadwalader. The group highlighted these concerns in a press release that accompanied the announcement of the lawsuit.

American Oversight is focused on the “sweeping arrangements” with Paul Weiss, Skadden, Willkie Farr, Milbank, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, Kirkland & Ellis, A&O Shearman, and Cadwalader, according to a press release announcing the litigation.

To date, those firms have signed agreements with the government to provide between $40 million and $125 million in legal services toward efforts supported by the 45th and 47th president.

“When elite law firms decide it’s safer to appease political power than uphold the rule of law, the public deserves to know what was bargained away,” American Oversight Executive Director Chioma Chukwu said in a statement. “Lawyers swear an oath to serve the public and the Constitution, not abandon principle when it threatens their bottom line. Yet these firms capitulated, engaging in anticipatory obedience to secure protection and profit.”

The lawsuit cites “public reporting” by NPR, ABC News and The New York Times which suggests the firms working for the government have geared their services toward trade deals, immigration enforcement efforts, and defending members of law enforcement.

Notably, however, the lawsuit acknowledges “the scope of the services included in these agreements is unclear.”

To that end, throughout October, the nonprofit submitted “eight FOIA requests to Commerce and DOJ seeking records with the potential to shed light on federal government activity related to the nine law firms that have agreed to provide nearly $1 billion worth of free legal services for the Trump Administration,” according to the filing.

The Commerce Department, for its part, acknowledged receipt of one such request in early December — and also took the opportunity to invoke an “unusual circumstances” time extension.

In that invocation, the Commerce Department cited the need to “search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are the subject of a single request; and the need to consult, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another Federal agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the FOIA request or with another component of the Department which has a substantial interest in the determination of the FOIA request,” according to the lawsuit.

And then, the Commerce Department ceased communication, according to the plaintiffs.

“As of the date of this Complaint, American Oversight has received no further communications from Commerce regarding this FOIA request,” the lawsuit reads.

In succession, a series of similar requests were filed. Those requests run the gamut — the group filed FOIA bids for various communications from both agencies related to the law firm deals, various contracts related to those deals, and relevant legal analyses.

The litigation describes the “legal analyses” request as follows:

Records reflecting any final legal advice and analysis (including both formal legal analyses and memoranda, as well as informal electronic communications) regarding law firms conducting pro bono, discounted, and/or free work for the federal government, including, but not limited to, whether such arrangements comply with the Antideficiency Act and/or other federal statutes.

In sum, the government similarly cited “unusual circumstances” for five of the group’s eight requests, according to the lawsuit. In three other instances, the government did not cite “unusual circumstances” but otherwise failed to respond within the statutory timeline for FOIA requests, the plaintiffs allege.

“As of the date of this Complaint, Defendants have failed to: (a) notify American Oversight of a final determination regarding American Oversight’s FOIA requests, including the scope of responsive records Defendants intend to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings; or (b) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production,” the lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit is premised on two causes of action — an alleged failure to conduct adequate searches for responsive records, and the alleged wrongful withholding of non-exempt responsive records.

The plaintiffs are asking the judge to order the agency defendants to conduct a search or searches reasonably calculated to uncover all records responsive to American Oversight’s FOIA requests” and to produce such records within 20 days of such a would-be court order — or to provide a withholding excuse by a date the judge “deems appropriate.”

The lawsuit also seeks an injunction barring the government from withholding any such responsive records.

“They entered sweeping, secretive agreements with the very administration targeting them, and their work now advances the president’s political agenda at the public’s expense,” Chukwu went on. “That is unacceptable. These records must be released so the American people can see the terms of these deals and hold institutions accountable when they choose compliance over principle. And accountability must follow.”