Lawyers representing Susman Godfrey asked a federal judge late Wednesday to declare that President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring the Texas-based law firm a threat to national security violates the constitution and asked the judge to award the law firm a complete and immediate victory by granting its motion for summary judgment.
Exactly two weeks after President Trump issued his executive order accusing Susman Godfrey of “spearheading efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrading the quality of American elections” and “undermining the effectiveness of the United States military,” the firm’s lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan to issue a permanent injunctive relief that puts a stop to the president’s “unprecedented abuse of the powers of his office.”
“Nothing in our Constitution or laws grants a President the power to punish attorneys for advocating on behalf of clients and petitioning the courts,” Susman Godfrey argues in its motion. “To the contrary, the specific provisions and overall design of our Constitution were adopted in large measure to ensure that no president could abuse the weighty power of the presidency as this President seeks to do.”
In his executive order against Susman Godfrey issued April 9, President Trump ordered the federal government to suspend security clearances of all Susman Godfrey lawyers and staff, required all federal government contractors to stop using Susman Godfrey as legal counsel and prohibited the firm’s lawyers from entering any federal office buildings.
Susman Godfrey sued President Trump and most members of his cabinet April 11 and obtained a temporary restraining order April 15 from Judge AliKhan preventing the executive orders from being enforced.
President Trump has previously signed executive orders against five other law firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner Block, WilmerHale, Covington & Burling and Paul Weiss.
Three of the law firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner Block and WilmerHale — sued President Trump seeking to have the executive orders declared unconstitutional.
Paul Weiss reached a settlement agreement with the White House, agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono legal work to causes supported by both the firm and President Trump. Covington & Burling has taken no action.
In March and early April, several large corporate law firms — Skadden Arps, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Willkie Farr, A&O Shearman and Simpson Thacher — all reached similar agreements with President Trump.
Perkins Coie, Skadden Arps, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Willkie Farr, A&O Shearman and Simpson Thacher have offices in Texas.
In its 59-page motion for summary judgment, Susman Godfrey argues that all of President Trump’s executive orders against the law firms are “a transparent attempt to chill protected advocacy with which the president disagrees and to undermine the independence of the bar.”
“The order will cause Susman irreparable harm absent relief, both because the ongoing violation of its constitutional rights is irreparable and because the very purpose of the order is to tarnish Susman’s reputation, permanently damage its relationships with clients, and inflict irreparable economic harm,” Susman Godfrey argues in the motion. “Although Susman faces constitutional, reputational, and economic injuries, the government would suffer no injury if prevented from implementing this unconstitutional order.”
During a hearing Wednesday before a separate federal judge in Washington, D.C., a lawyer for the U.S. Justice Department argued that the executive orders were within the president’s authority, especially to revoke security clearances.
“When it comes to the national security clearances, an essential factor is trust in the holder,” DOJ attorney Richard Lawson told U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who is hearing the lawsuit brought by Perkins Coie.
Judge Howell responded, “And $40 million worth of free legal services is enough to have the president trust Paul, Weiss again.”
Susman Godfrey is represented in the lawsuit by lawyers for 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.