Stating that President Donald Trump and his administration are “engaged in an unprecedented and unconstitutional assault on the independent bar, the independent judiciary and the rule of law,” lawyers for Susman Godfrey asked a federal judge Monday to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent federal officials from enforcing the president’s executive order signed last Wednesday against the Houston law firm.
Last Friday, Susman Godfrey sued the Trump administration claiming that the executive order was an abuse of power “in an express campaign of retaliation for representing clients and causes” that President Trump “disfavors or employing lawyers he dislikes.”
In the executive order signed by President Trump last week, he accuses the high-powered litigation firm of “egregious conduct and conflicts of interest” and representing “clients that engage in conduct undermining critical American interests and priorities.” The order by the president suspends “security clearances held by individuals at Susman Godfrey pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.”
In its 45-page motion filed Monday, Susman Godfrey states that its motion “easily satisfies the remaining requirements for preliminary relief.”
“Susman will suffer irreparable harm absent immediate relief, both because the ongoing violation of its constitutional rights is irreparable and because the order sets out to tarnish Susman’s reputation, permanently damage its relationships with clients, and inflict economic harm,” the law firm argues.
President Trump’s executive order against Susman Godfrey was his fifth against major corporate law firms in the U.S. Three other law firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner Block — have also sued the White House, and federal judges immediately issued temporary restraining orders preventing key portions of the orders from being enforced.
The fourth law firm, Paul Weiss, reached a settlement agreement with the president. Paul Weiss agreed to donate $40 million of pro bono hours to causes and clients approved by both President Trump and the law firm. The chair of Paul Weiss said that the president’s “executive order could have easily destroyed our firm.”
In the last two weeks, seven additional large corporate law firms — Skadden Arps, Willkie Farr, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, A&O Shearman and Cadwalader — have reached settlement agreements with the White House to prevent executive orders targeting them.
“Like Perkins, Jenner, and Wilmer before it, Susman is facing an imminent risk of losing clients, finding the doors to government buildings barred and scheduled meetings with government personnel cancelled, and having its ability to advocate for its clients severely curtailed,” the Susman Godfrey TRO petition states. “The equities and public interest also tilt decisively in favor of immediate relief. Although Susman faces imminent constitutional, reputational, and economic injuries, the government would suffer no injury if prevented from implementing this unconstitutional order while its constitutionality is litigated.”
Susman Godfrey is represented in the lawsuit by lawyers from Munger, Tolles & Olson.
The case is Susman Godfrey v. The Executive Office of the President, U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., Case No. 1:25—cv—01107.