The Trump administration filed court documents late Monday stating that it will no longer seek to enforce the executive orders signed by President Donald Trump last spring against Susman Godfrey and a handful of other law firms.
In a six-page “Unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeals,” the U.S. Department of Justice said that will no longer fight to reverse orders from lower court judges declaring that the executive orders targeting four law firms were illegal and blocked them from being enforced.
“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2), Defendant-Appellants respectfully move to voluntarily dismiss these consolidated appeals, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs. Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellees have authorized Defendant-Appellants to state that Plaintiff-Appellees consent to this motion,” the DOJ motion states.
In a statement issued to The Texas Lawbook, lawyers for Susman Godfrey stated that the Trump administration “has capitulated, which is a fitting end to its plainly unconstitutional attack on Susman Godfrey and the rule of law. In doing so, it has abandoned any attempt to defend the indefensible executive order against our firm.”
“Susman Godfrey fights tirelessly for its clients every day, so of course we defended ourselves when the President sought to punish and intimidate us because of the clients we represent and the values we hold,” Susman Godfrey stated. “We fought for ourselves, but we fought for bigger things, too: for a Constitution that protects our freedoms; for a legal profession that depends on equal justice under the law; and for the people across this country who refuse to back down in the face of an Administration that seeks to silence and intimidate them — lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
“We did not seek this fight, but neither did we run from it. And we won.”
RELATED: Susman Godfrey EO Litigation Timeline
One year ago, President Trump issued the first such EO against Perkins Coie, a Seattle-founded law firm that has offices in Texas. Additional EOs followed, including one on April 9 that targeted Houston-based Susman Godfrey.
President Trump condemned Susman Godfrey for alleged racial discrimination in its hiring practices and for “spearheading efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrading the quality of American election.” The president ordered federal agencies to ban Susman Godfrey lawyers and employees from all federal buildings and courthouses and to instruct businesses with government contracts to stop working with Susman Godfrey. The order also revoked national security clearances for all Susman Godfrey lawyers.
Two days later, Susman Godfrey sued the Trump administration. On June 27, a federal judge in Washington declared that the EO targeting Susman Godfrey was an illegal act of retaliation and a violation the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The judge also permanently enjoined all federal officials from enforcing the order against the Texas law firm.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., wrote that the president’s order was “especially pernicious” and noted the allegations were not supported by any evidence.
“The Order tarnishes, without process, Susman’s reputation with salacious allegations of wrongdoing … and it brands Susman as unfit for government work, or even government interaction,” the judge wrote. “Defendants cannot target Susman for those activities simply because it does not like them. And to the extent that defendants argue that the Order is not intended as a punitive measure, but as a legitimate exercise of the government’s discretion when it acts as a contractor, the court reiterates that the government is still required to comply with the Constitution when it acts as a contractor.”
“The court concludes that the Order constitutes unlawful retaliation against Susman for activities that are protected by the First Amendment, including its representation of certain clients, its donations to certain causes, and its expression of its beliefs regarding diversity,” Judge AliKhan wrote.
The federal government filed the same motion to dismiss its cases against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale.
Nine law firms, including several that operate in Texas, opted to sign settlement agreements with the Trump administration rather than fight the EOs in court. Those firms included A&O Shearman, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Paul Weiss, Simpson Thacher and Skadden Arps.
The case is Susman Godfrey v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-5241.