Texas litigation powerhouse Susman Godfrey filed a federal lawsuit late Friday accusing President Donald Trump of issuing unconstitutional executive orders against it and other law firms. The law firm calls the president’s actions a violation of the rule of law and “a grave threat to this foundational premise of our Republic.”
The 66-page complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleges that President Trump “is abusing the powers of his office” and “is engaged in an unprecedented and unconstitutional assault on those bedrock principles [found in Article I and in the First and Fifth Amendments] and on the independent bar.”
“In recent weeks, the president has issued multiple executive orders targeting law firms and their employees in an express campaign of retaliation for representing clients and causes he disfavors or employing lawyers he dislikes,” the lawsuit states, “If a president can with impunity seek to destroy a law firm because of the clients it represents, then the rule of law itself is in grave danger.”
“The executive order makes no secret of its unconstitutional retaliatory and discriminatory intent to punish Susman Godfrey for its work defending the integrity of the 2020 presidential election,” the Houston-based firm states in the complaint.
Susman Godfrey served as legal counsel for Dominion in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News and other media outlets, which broadcasted claims by President Trump and his supporters that the Dominion electronic voting machines helped rig the 2020 election. Fox News settled the lawsuit for $787.5 million instead of going to trial.
And the very same day that the White House released the executive order against Susman Godfrey, lawyers for the firm won a huge court victory for Dominion in a billion-dollar defamation case against the conservative news channel Newsmax Media in another 2020 presidential election dispute.
On Wednesday, President Trump issued an executive order that accuses the firm of “egregious conduct and conflicts of interest” and representing “clients that engage in conduct undermining critical American interests and priorities.”
The order by the president suspends “security clearances held by individuals at Susman Godfrey pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.”
“Susman spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections,” President Trump wrote in the executive order. “Susman funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the U.S. military through the injection of political and radical ideology, and it supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race.”
President Trump’s executive order against Susman Godfrey was his fifth against major corporate law firms in the U.S. Three other law firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner Block — sued the White House and federal judges immediately issued temporary restraining orders preventing key portions of the orders from being enforced.
The fourth law firm, Paul Weiss, reached a settlement agreement with the president. Paul Weiss agreed to donate $40 million of pro bono hours to causes and clients approved by both President Trump and the law firm. The chair of Paul Weiss said that the president’s “executive order could have easily destroyed our firm.”
Days later, two other large corporate law firms, Skadden Arps and Willkie Farr, reached similar agreements with President Trump. Skadden and Willkie have offices in Houston.
On Friday morning, the White House announced that it had reached agreements with four additional corporate law firms that have large operations in Texas: Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and A&O Shearman.
The White House said that the agreements require the law firms to allow an independent outside counsel to monitor their recruiting and hiring practices for possible discriminatory efforts.
Kirkland, Latham, Simpson Thacher and A&O Shearman combined have more than 700 business lawyers practicing in Austin, Dallas and Houston and generate nearly $2 billion in revenue in Texas. Each firm agreed to provide $125 million in free legal services — some pro bono and some possible legal work for the federal government — and agreed that their pro bono work would include more politically conservative causes.
In its lawsuit filed late Friday, Susman Godfrey states that President Trump’s executive order “is unsparing in its attempt to punish Susman Godfrey and its attorneys simply for doing their jobs as lawyers and officers of the court.”
The complaint, which quotes extensively from President Trump’s social media posts and public comments, states that provisions of the executive order “aim to vitiate Susman Godfrey’s ability to represent a wide range of clients, including those with government contracts or other business before the government, and to prevent the firm from advocating in front of — or against — the government in a broad swath of matters.”
“Through its defamatory allegations against the firm, the order seeks to warn or drive clients away from engaging the firm’s services,” Susman Godfrey states. “Simply put, the order endeavors to foreclose the firm from practicing law — for the perceived transgression of undertaking representations with which the president disagrees.”
The lawsuit states that the executive orders violate the First Amendment by retaliating against Susman Godfrey for its speech and by discriminating against Susman Godfrey “for views or perspectives it or its clients have expressed.” The order also violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment by depriving Susman Godfrey of protected liberty and property interests without any procedural protections, according to the lawsuit.
The executive order also illegally targets Susman Godfrey “because of its commitment to equal opportunity in the legal profession,” the lawsuit states.
“Unless the Judiciary acts with resolve — now — to repudiate this blatantly unconstitutional executive order and the others like it, a dangerous and perhaps irreversible precedent will be set,” Susman Godfrey argues. “If President Trump’s executive orders are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they seek to retaliate against a different set of perceived foes. What for two centuries has been beyond the pale will become the new normal.”
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.
Related Coverage
- Four Law Firms in Texas Cut Deal with White House
- Should Law Firms Settle or Fight Trump’s EOs? Readers Respond in a Texas Lawbook Online Forum: Sally Helppie, Attorney (Dallas-Fort Worth)
- 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