On the very day last week that the U.S. Justice Department asked a federal judge to dismiss Susman Godfrey’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order against the Houston litigation powerhouse, the federal judge in the case was blitzed with more than 20 separate amicus briefs by 366 former judges, current law professors, former FBI and CIA directors, 77 former corporate general counsel and dozens of bar associations supporting Susman Godfrey’s legal efforts.
In a brief filed late Friday, 884 law firms — 49 of which are based or have offices in Texas, including Carrington Coleman, Gibbs & Bruns, Graves Dougherty, Lynn Pinker and Yetter Coleman — told U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., that President Trump’s executive order against Susman Godfrey “poses a grave threat to our system of constitutional justice” and said that the “judiciary should act … to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases.” None of the large corporate full-service law firms in Texas signed the brief.
In a separate amicus brief filed Friday, 27 former high-ranking government officials — including former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former CIA Director Michael Hayden and retired Judge Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit — said Judge AliKhan should intervene because of the “ultra vires nature of President Trump’s executive order against Susman, which is far afield from anything Amici have ever seen or would have advised issuing.”
But the Trump administration shot back late last week, saying Judge AliKhan should dismiss Susman Godfrey’s lawsuit because President Trump’s executive order “seeks to ensure that taxpayer funds are not in any way diverted to support unlawful or unsavory practices that — if they should be permitted at all — must be financed by the private dime.”
“Plaintiff’s lawsuit carries with it a dangerous risk of muzzling the Executive,” Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson wrote in the Justice Department’s 36-page motion to dismiss. “No less than plaintiff, the Government has a right to speak. Plaintiff does not and cannot argue that it should have security clearance privileges if contrary to the national interest. As detailed herein, courts have long held that on such matters the President is entitled to great deference.
“The Executive Order … seeks to ensure that there is no transfer of taxpayer dollars to entities that engage in racial discrimination,” the DOJ argues in its motion. “Executive use of the procurement power to advance social policy has long been held to be on the firmest possible grounds of authority.”
Lawson, in the brief, states that the executive order simply directs the “attorney general and the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (‘EEOC’) to review whether large law firms are violating the civil rights laws — in other words, to do what it was already the EEOC’s job to do. Again, this is firmly within the prerogative of the Executive.”
President Trump issued an executive order against Susman Godfrey on April 9 that accused the law firm 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 EOs accuse Susman Godfrey of racially discriminatory practices by offering scholarships to groups of people who are underrepresented in this legal profession.
The EOs strip Susman Godfrey lawyers of national security clearances, prohibit them from representing clients that do business with the federal government and prohibit them from entering federal buildings.
Susman Godfrey, in a lawsuit filed April 11 seeking to have the president’s EO declared unconstitutional, argues that President Trump is targeting the law firm because it represents clients and causes that the president and his supporters dislike. For example, Susman Godfrey represents Dominion Voting Systems in defamation litigation against Fox News, Newsmax and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. Susman Godfrey secured a $787.5 million settlement against Fox News and is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for falsely claiming the 2020 election was stolen from President Trump and that Dominion played a role.
Judge AliKhan issued a temporary restraining order preventing President Trump’s EOs from being enforced on April 15.
(Associated Press photo by Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA)
President Trump issued similar executive orders against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Paul Weiss and Jenner & Block. Paul Weiss cut a deal with President Trump to provide $40 million in pro bono services to causes and clients that were approved by both the White House and the law firm. The other three law firms sued the Trump administration and have also obtained TROs from federal judges preventing the executive orders from being enforced.
Susman Godfrey was one of the first law firms to sign an amicus brief siding with Perkins Coie and WilmerHale.
Several other law firms — Skadden Arps, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher and A&O Shearman, all of which have Texas offices — reached settlement agreements with President Trump by agreeing to provide pro bono work and “other legal services” in return for the president’s promise not to slap them with executive orders.
In their 26-page amicus brief, the 27 former senior government officials argue that “no such deference be afforded the president’s attempt to invoke national security to justify this punitive, retributive, ad hominem order.”
“The Constitution did not make the president a king empowered to punish subjects arbitrarily based on animus or whim,” the former government officials, which include former FBI and CIA director William Webster, wrote. “Even setting aside the many constitutional rights violated by his order, the president possesses no general national security power that empowers him to sanction U.S. citizens or entities simply because they disagree with him. Nor does any Supreme Court decision or historical practice authorize the president to unilaterally issue punitive bills of attainder targeting American citizens or entities against whom he holds discriminatory animus.”
“If national security considerations can justify this order, then national security could be invoked to justify any arbitrary executive act,” the amicus brief states. “Left undisturbed, this order will jeopardize the executive’s ability to call for judicial deference in those cases where national security is genuinely implicated.”
In their amicus brief, the 884 law firms state that President Trump is seeking to “cow every other law firm, large and small, into submission.”
“The looming threat posed by the Executive Order at issue in this case and the others like it is not lost on anyone practicing law in this country today: any controversial representation challenging actions of the current administration (or even causes it disfavors) now brings with it the risk of devastating retaliation,” the law firms argue. “Whatever short-term advantage an administration may gain from exercising power in this way, the rule of law cannot long endure in the climate of fear that such actions create. Our adversarial system depends upon zealous advocates litigating each side of a case with equal vigor; that is how impartial judges arrive at just, informed decisions that vindicate the rule of law.”
In addition to those Texas firms named earlier, others who signed the amicus brief include Waters Krause, the Aldous Law Firm, Crain Brogdon, Nachawati Law Group and Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler.
Of the 366 former judges who signed an amicus brief supporting Susman Godfrey, only five were from Texas.
Seventy-seven former corporate general counsel also signed an amicus brief telling the judge that President Trump’s executive order “erodes the foundation of legal representation by counsel of choice, uses federal contracts to coerce political loyalty and conscripts private businesses to settle the president’s political scores.”
“Its message is clear: hire the wrong lawyers or take the wrong public stance, and your company will be punished,” the GCs wrote.
Only two of the former general counsel are from Texas: former McKesson Corporation Chief Legal Officer Lori Schechter and former Black Mountain General Counsel Kelli Roach.
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.
Susman Godfrey EO litigation timeline
March 6 — President Trump issues executive order against Perkins Coie
March 11 — Perkins Coie sues Trump administration
March 12 — Judge grants Perkins Coie TRO preventing EO from being enforced
March 14 — President issues executive order against Paul Weiss
March 17 — EEOC sends demand letter to 20 large law firms — 13 with offices in Texas — seeking information on their diversity programs and those of their clients
March 20 — Paul Weiss reaches settlement agreement with president, who withdraws EO
March 21 — President issues memorandum instructing U.S. attorney general to investigate law firms that pursue “frivolous and vexatious” lawsuits against the government
March 25 — President issues EO against Jenner Block
March 27 — President issues EO against WilmerHale
March 28 — Skadden Arps, fearing an EO, reaches settlement agreement with White House
March 28 — WilmerHale and Jenner Block sue Trump administration, obtain judicial TROs
March 28 — Willkie Farr reaches settlement agreement with President Trump
April 4 — Susman Godfrey and eight other Texas firms join 504 firms in amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie
April 9 — President issues EO against Susman Godfrey, which promises to fight
April 11 — Five law firms, including Kirkland, Latham, A&O Shearman and Simpson Thacher, which have offices in Texas, reach agreements with the White House
April 11 — Susman Godfrey sues President Trump
April 15 — Judge issues TRO preventing president’s EO from being enforced against Susman Godfrey
April 23 — Susman Godfrey seeks summary judgment against President Trump
April 24 — DOJ asks judge to dismiss Susman Godfrey lawsuit
April 25 — More than 20 different groups, including former GCs, former judges, bar associations and hundreds of law firms, file amicus briefs supporting Susman Godfrey