A federal judge has declared that President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting Susman Godfrey 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.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., in a 53-page opinion issued Friday, states that President Trump’s order issued in April “threatens the independence of the bar — a necessity for the rule of law.”
Judge AliKhan is the fourth federal judge in the past two months to declare as unconstitutional Trump administration executive orders targeting corporate law firms that advocate on behalf of positions and clients opposed by the president.
President Trump’s April 9 executive order 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.
Judge AliKhan called President Trump’s order “especially pernicious” and said 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.
Lawyers for President Trump argued that such a restraining order would “muzzle the executive” by limiting the president’s free speech.
The judge rejected that argument, stating that President Trump can say anything he wants about the firm, but that the issue here is the president’s “application of state power” by using his executive orders to punish Susman Godfrey for its free speech and advocacy in representing clients.
Judge AliKhan also rejected the White House’s argument that President Trump’s executive orders were about national security. She pointed to the executive order targeting the New York law firm Paul Weiss, which reached a settlement agreement with the White House to reinstate its lawyers’ national security clearances, rather than going to court to fight.
“The presence of nearly identical clauses in several executive orders targeting other law firms further confirms that the security-clearance provision is intended as a retaliatory measure,” the judge wrote. “Perhaps most revealing is the fact that the Paul Weiss executive order included a nearly identical provision that was walked back by the government as soon as Paul Weiss agreed to ‘adopt a policy of political neutrality with respect to client selection and attorney hiring and take on a wide range of pro bono matters representing the full political spectrum … and dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during [President Trump’s term].”
“No facet of this agreement touches on national security at all,” Judge AliKhan wrote. “Instead, each provision addresses a policy disagreement that the Trump Administration had with Paul Weiss’s work.”
The judge wrote that the president’s EOs violated Susman Godfrey’s Fifth Amendment right to due process because they were never presented with any evidence against them and were given no opportunities to defend their firm prior to the actions being implemented.
The Trump administration has 90 days to appeal the judge’s order to the federal court of appeals.
In a statement, Susman Godfrey said the ruling is “a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation.”
“Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs,” the firm said in a written statement. “Susman Godfrey’s lawyers and staff live these values every day.”
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.