Less than 15 hours after telling a federal appeals court that it no longer planned to fight to enforce the executive orders signed by President Donald Trump last spring against Susman Godfrey and three other corporate law firms, the U.S. Justice Department filed new motions today seeking to “withdraw their motion to voluntarily dismiss these consolidated appeals.”
The same two senior DOJ lawyers who last evening told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the federal government would no longer fight to reverse orders from lower court judges declaring that the EOs targeting four law firms were illegal and blocked them from being enforced signed a six-page filing today saying that the fight is back on.
Justice Department lawyers gave no explanation for the government’s sudden reversal.
“Counsel for Defendant-Appellants reached out to counsel for Plaintiff-Appellees for their position,” DOJ Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambi wrote. “All Plaintiff-Appellees oppose stating, ‘Plaintiffs-Appellees oppose the government’s unexplained request to withdraw yesterday’s voluntary dismissal, to which all parties had agreed. Under no circumstances should the government’s unexplained about-face provide a basis for an extension of its brief.’”
“Regardless of Plaintiff-Appellees position, this Court has not yet granted the motion to dismiss, and it is the prerogative of Defendant-Appellants to pursue this appeal,” DOJ stated in the motion. “In addition, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff-Appellees in the Court granting this motion.”
Lawyers for Texas-based Susman Godfrey issued the following statement to The Texas Lawbook today:
“Yesterday evening, the Administration told the Court that it gave up and wouldn’t even try to defend its unconstitutional executive orders. Today, it reversed course. Regardless, Susman Godfrey will defend itself and the rule of law — without equivocation.”
In a separate statement, Seattle-founded Perkins Coie, which has Texas offices, condemned the DOJ’s reversal.
“It offered no explanation to either the parties or the court for its reversal,” the firm wrote in a statement. “We remain committed to defending our firm, our people, and our clients.”
Legal experts said it remains unclear how the federal appeals court will handle the conflicting motions.
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 of 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.”
Susman Godfrey Executive Order Litigation Timeline
President Donald Trump issued executive orders targeting a half-dozen law firms, including Houston-based Susman Godfrey, accusing them 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 also accuse the firms of racially discriminatory practices via their diversity and inclusion programs. Through last night, here’s a timeline of the litigation that started last spring:
March 6, 2025 — President Trump issues executive order against Perkins Coie
March 11, 2025 — Perkins Coie sues Trump administration
March 12, 2025 — Judge grants Perkins Coie TRO preventing EO from being enforced
March 14, 2025 — President issues executive order against Paul Weiss
March 17, 2025 — 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, 2025 — Paul Weiss reaches settlement agreement with president, who withdraws EO
March 21, 2025 — President issues memorandum instructing U.S. attorney general to investigate law firms that pursue “frivolous and vexatious” lawsuits against the government
March 25, 2025 — President issues EO against Jenner Block
March 27, 2025 — President issues EO against WilmerHale
March 28, 2025 — Skadden Arps, fearing an EO, reaches settlement agreement with White House
March 28, 2025 — WilmerHale and Jenner Block sue Trump administration, obtain judicial TROs
March 28, 2025 — Willkie Farr reaches settlement agreement with President Trump
April 4, 2025 — Susman Godfrey and eight other Texas firms join 504 firms in amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie
April 9, 2025 — President issues EO against Susman Godfrey, which promises to fight
April 11, 2025 — 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, 2025 — Susman Godfrey sues President Trump
April 15, 2025 — Judge issues TRO preventing president’s EO from being enforced against Susman Godfrey
April 23, 2025 — Susman Godfrey seeks summary judgment against President Trump
April 24, 2025 — DOJ asks judge to dismiss Susman Godfrey lawsuit
April 25, 2025 — More than 20 different groups, including former GCs, former judges, bar associations and hundreds of law firms, file amicus briefs supporting Susman Godfrey
May 2, 2025 — Judge grants summary judgment to Perkins Coie, permanently barring the EO from taking effect
May 8, 2025 — Judge AliKhan hears oral arguments in Susman Godfrey’s motion for summary judgment
June 27, 2025 — Judge AliKhan declares that President Trump’s executive order targeting Susman is an illegal act of retaliation and violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The judge also permanently enjoined all federal officials from enforcing the order against the Texas-based law firm in a 53-page opinion.
Aug. 22, 2025 — The Justice Department notifies the federal court that it plans to appeal Judge AliKhan’s ruling.
Oct. 6, 2025 — The Justice Department asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue a stay of all executive order proceedings involving the litigation between the Trump administration and the four law firms, including Susman Godfrey, until the government shutdown is over.
March 2, 2026 — In a six-page “Unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeals,” the Justice Department says it 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.