Describing President Donald Trump’s executive order against Susman Godfrey as a “personal vendetta” and a “shocking abuse of power,” a federal judge Tuesday issued a temporary restraining order preventing critical provisions of the EO from being enforced.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan said President Trump’s order issued last Wednesday against the Houston-based litigation firm almost certainly violates the First and Fifth Amendments’ free speech, freedom of association and due process clauses.
The TRO is necessary, the judge ruled, because the executive order threatened the “very existence” of the law firm.
“I think the framers of our constitution would see this as a shocking abuse,” Judge AliKhan stated. “The government is purely trying to control what private lawyers may do, which I do not think will withstand constitutional scrutiny.”
The judge said she admires Susman Godfrey for “standing up” to the White House and fighting instead of cutting a deal with the Trump Administration as other large corporate law firms have done out of “coercion.”
Throughout the hearing, the federal government’s lead lawyer, Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson, struggled to explain even basic reasonings for President Trump’s executive order against Susman Godfrey.
Judge AliKhan is the third federal judge to issue a TRO preventing executive orders by the president against law firms from taking effect. Other judges have issued rulings that presidential EOs against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale are likely unconstitutional and should be put on ice.
“Like Perkins, Jenner, and Wilmer before it, Susman is facing an imminent risk of losing clients, finding the doors to government buildings barred and scheduled meetings with government personnel cancelled, and having its ability to advocate for its clients severely curtailed,” the Susman Godfrey TRO petition filed Monday states. “The equities and public interest also tilt decisively in favor of immediate relief. Although Susman faces imminent constitutional, reputational, and economic injuries, the government would suffer no injury if prevented from implementing this unconstitutional order while its constitutionality is litigated.”
Susman Godfrey is represented in the lawsuit by lawyers from 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.
Related coverage
- Susman Godfrey Seeks TRO Against Trump Administration
- Susman Godfrey: President Trump ‘is Abusing the Powers of His Office … in Retaliation Against Organizations and People He Dislikes’
- Four Law Firms in Texas Cut Deal with White House
- Nine Texas Litigation Firms Sign Amicus Brief in Opposition to Presidential EOs
- Texas AG Sends Piggyback Demands to Law Firms on DEI Info
- Paul Weiss: Competitor Law Firms Came for Our Clients, Not to Help Us