Trump's Big Law executive orders go 0-4 after judge slaps down order against Susman Godfrey

Yahoo

28-06-2025

A federal judge found the Trump administration's order against Susman Godfrey unconstitutional.
Trump has so far lost all four legal challenges brought against his orders targeting Big Law firms.
The rulings may be appealed to the Appeals Court. Any subsequent appeal goes to the Supreme Court.
President Donald Trump faced another legal loss on Friday after a District Court judge slapped down his executive order against the Big Law firm Susman Godfrey.
In her ruling, Judge Loren AliKhan wrote that the order against Susman Godfrey "was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed."
"In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the US Constitution and must be permanently enjoined."
Three other federal judges have already found similar executive orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale unconstitutional. AliKhan's ruling in the Susman Godfrey case marks a 0-4 record for the Trump administration in legal challenges regarding his executive orders targeting Big Law firms.
Susman Godfrey said in a statement that the court's 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."
"We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional," the firm's statement continued. "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. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day."
Harrison Fields, principal White House deputy press secretary, told Business Insider in a statement that the White House opposes Judge AliKhan's ruling.
"The decision to grant any individual access to this nation's secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President," Fields said. "Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the President's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority."
The federal government can appeal AliKhan's ruling, in which case the proceedings will be heard in the court of appeals. Any subsequent appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court.
Fields did not immediately respond to Business Insider when asked if the government would appeal Judge AliKhan's decision.
Judge AliKhan's ruling represents a major legal victory for the firms that have challenged the president's executive orders in court.
While some other Big Law firms chose instead to strike deals with the administration to avoid or reverse punitive executive actions against them — drawing sharp criticism from industry insiders and a spate of resignations among associates and some partners — Business Insider previously reported that Susman Godfrey's decision to fight back in court took just two hours.
In the original April 9 executive order against Susman Godfrey, the Trump administration accused the firm of "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections."
Judge AliKahn had granted the firm a temporary restraining order on April 15, preventing enforcement of the order against Susman Godfrey pending further proceedings.
In issuing her order granting the TRO, the judge said she believed "the framers of our constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power," according to The American Lawyer.
Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in its suit against Fox News after the 2020 election, which resulted in a $787.5 million settlement, and The New York Times in the publication's copyright suit against OpenAI and Microsoft, which has not yet reached a conclusion.
Read the original article on Business Insider