WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump that targeted prominent law firm Susman Godfrey, marking yet another legal defeat for the administration in its campaign against firms it sees as politically hostile.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the executive order unlawfully retaliated against Susman Godfrey for its legal work and public advocacy, including its defense of the 2020 election results and support for racial diversity. The judge found that the order violated the firm’s constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
“This order goes beyond violating the Constitution,” AliKhan wrote in a sweeping 53-page decision. “It threatens the independence of the legal profession — a foundation of the rule of law.”
Retaliation Alleged Over 2020 Election and Diversity Programs
Susman Godfrey had been sanctioned under the Trump order by having its attorneys’ security clearances suspended and its access to federal buildings and contracts restricted. The administration accused the firm of “racial bias” in hiring and claimed its defense of Dominion Voting Systems — a client in defamation suits tied to Trump’s false election fraud claims — constituted “weaponization” of the legal system.
In her ruling, AliKhan rejected those arguments, saying the administration had failed to show any legal wrongdoing by Susman. Instead, she concluded that the firm was being punished for representing unpopular clients and expressing support for diversity — both protected by the First Amendment.
“This is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by counsel without fear of political retribution,” Susman Godfrey said in a statement after the decision.
Pattern of Targeting Law Firms
This is the fourth time a federal judge in Washington has ruled against similar executive orders. Earlier decisions sided with other high-profile firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale — all of which were targeted for defending causes or clients opposed by Trump or the GOP.
In response, several major firms, including Skadden Arps, Kirkland & Ellis, and Latham & Watkins, agreed to settlements with the administration, pledging pro bono legal work in exchange for avoiding further penalties. Collectively, those firms committed nearly $1 billion in free services for causes backed by the Trump administration.
Susman refused to settle, instead choosing to challenge the executive order in court.
Broader Implications
The ruling underscores growing concerns over politicization of the legal system. Judge AliKhan emphasized that legal representation and political beliefs — including charitable donations — cannot be grounds for government retaliation.
The Justice Department defended the executive order as a legitimate exercise of presidential authority, arguing that national security concerns justified revoking clearances and restricting access. The White House doubled down, with spokesman Harrison Fields saying security decisions “fall squarely under the president’s discretion.”
But the judge disagreed, finding that Trump’s actions targeted lawful activity — not misconduct.
With this ruling, legal experts say the administration’s efforts to punish firms for opposing Trump’s political agenda are likely to face continued pushback from the courts.
