plowunited.net – A federal judge ruled President Trump’s executive order against Susman Godfrey unconstitutional. The order sought to punish the law firm by limiting its access to federal buildings and security clearances. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan blocked the administration from enforcing the order. This decision adds to a series of rulings protecting law firms targeted by Trump’s policies.
Four major firms, including Susman Godfrey, challenged Trump’s orders in court rather than comply by offering free legal services. All four lawsuits succeeded, with judges halting enforcement without trials. So far, the Trump administration has not appealed any of these rulings.
Read More : Asus ProArt PA32QCV Offers High-Res Studio Display Rival
Details of the Executive Orders and Legal Challenges
Trump’s executive orders specifically targeted Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale. In particular, they aimed to sanction these firms by restricting their clients, federal access, and employees’ security clearances. However, each firm argued that these orders violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, Judge AliKhan described the executive order as “unconstitutional from beginning to end.” She also warned that the order threatened the independence of the legal profession, which is essential for the rule of law. Notably, the order was signed in April and accused Susman Godfrey of “weaponizing” the American legal system.
Susman Godfrey’s Role and Legal Representation
Susman Godfrey has 350 employees and represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News. The lawsuit addressed false claims that Dominion rigged the 2020 election. Fox News and Dominion reached a $787 million settlement in 2023.
The firm continues to represent Dominion in related defamation cases involving figures like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell. Susman Godfrey’s lawyers say Trump’s executive order is unprecedented retaliation for representing clients the former president disfavors.
Background on Other Targeted Law Firms and Cases
The other firms targeted had connections to politically sensitive cases. Perkins Coie represented Hillary Clinton in 2016 and was linked to the Steele Dossier. Jenner & Block and WilmerHale included lawyers involved in the Russia investigation, such as Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann.
These firms also challenged other Trump policies. WilmerHale represented fired inspectors general, while Jenner & Block fought against restrictions on gender-affirming care funding. These legal battles contributed to Trump’s punitive executive orders.
Firms’ Responses and Broader Legal Implications
Some firms avoided sanctions by pledging millions in pro bono legal work. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison pledged $40 million, leading Trump to rescind his executive order against them. Eight other firms followed with similar commitments totaling over $100 million.
Trump suggested using these pro bono pledges as leverage in trade negotiations. However, firms like Susman Godfrey refused to comply and continued their legal challenges. Judge AliKhan’s ruling reinforces that executive power cannot be used to punish law firms for their clients. This decision upholds constitutional protections and legal independence.
As Trump’s administration faces more judicial defeats, the future of such executive orders remains uncertain. The judiciary continues to protect fairness and uphold the rule of law in the legal profession.
