President Donald Trump has 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.
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.
March 3, 2026 — 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 Trump, the Justice Department filed new motions seeking to “withdraw their motion to voluntarily dismiss these consolidated appeals.”
March 6, 2026 — The Justice Department reverses course, filing a defiant 97-page brief that stating over and over that federal courts have no authority to second-guess President Trump’s executive orders, even if those orders have no supporting facts, provide no due process opportunities and were implemented as punishment against law firms that represented clients in cases against the president and his allies. The DOJ also stated that it was “a grave error” for the four separate federal judges to enjoin the president’s executive orders against Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block.
March 27, 2026 — A brief submitted by attorneys for Susman Godfrey urges the D.C. Circuit to affirm the lower court’s permanent injunction against enforcement of the president’s executive order issued last spring. WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, two other corporate law firms targeted by EOs, also file briefs in their cases, now consolidated before the federal appeals court.
April 2, 2026 — Fifty-nine law students from eight different Texas law schools were among the 1,224 law students who filed an amicus brief supporting Susman Godfrey and three other law firms fighting executive orders.
April 3, 2026 — More than a dozen legal groups representing corporate general counsel, smaller law firms, former judges and law professors filed amicus briefs supporting Susman Godfrey and three other corporate law firms. The briefs, signed by 21 law professors at Texas law schools, 23 small-firm lawyers in Texas and several prominent Texas firms, asked the appellate court judges to uphold four lower court rulings that declared the presidential executive orders unconstitutional.