Judge blocks Trump executive order against Susman Godfrey law firm : NPR

President Trump announces that his administration has entered into an agreement with elite law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom during a wear ceremony in the Oval Office in March 2025.

Andrew Harnik / Getty images

hide

tilting legend

Andrew Harnik / Getty images

A federal judge canceled the decree of President Trump targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey, offering the last in a series of legal victories for the companies that challenged the president’s punitive campaign against Big Law.

The decision on Friday of the American district judge Loren Alikhan on Friday marks the fourth time on which a federal judge has permanently blocked one of Trump’s decrees aimed at punishing an elite law firm.

Judge Alikhan said in his decision that the decree against Susman Godfrey “is unconstitutional from start to finish”.

“Each court to have examined a challenge to one of these orders found serious constitutional violations and has the application of the ordinance in its entirety,” she wrote. “Today, this court initiates prosecution, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the American Constitution and must be permanently prohibited.”

“The court’s decision is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of each American to be represented by a legal advisor without fear of reprisals,” said Susman Godfrey in a statement. “We applaud the Court for having declared the ordinance of the unconstitutional administration. Our office is attached to the rule of law and to the protection of the rights of our customers regardless of their political or other beliefs.”

The last order offers a resounding reprimand to the unprecedented series of Trump decrees targeting eminent law firms since February. Orders have sought to punish them for having represented causes or customers who oppose, or for once of employment of the lawyers he does not like, like the former special lawyer Robert Mueller.

The ordinances impose several punitive measures, in particular the suspension of security clearances for the company’s lawyers, the sautéed in the access of its employees to government buildings and to civil servants, and at the end of government contracts with the company.

Four law firms – Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Wilmerhale and Susman Godfrey – continued individually to block Trump’s actions, saying that the decrees were unconstitutional and a threat to the legal profession.

In the four proceedings, the judges – appointed by republican presidents and democrats – found the orders of Trump unconstitutional and definitively blocked the application.

“Turons all avocados”

In their decisions, the judges noted that Trump’s orders were an attack on the rights of the first and the fifth amendment of law firms, as well as broader assault on the American legal system.

“The cornerstone of the American justice system is an independent judicial system and an independent bar ready to combat unpopular affairs, also intimidating,” wrote Judge Richard Leon, who was appointed by former president George W. Bush, in his opinion, the blocking of the application of the order against Wilmerhale.

“The Founding Fathers knew it! Consequently, they took problems to devote certain rights of the Constitution which would serve as the basis for this independence,” he added. “It is not surprising that in nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted, no decree was issued by contesting these fundamental rights.”

It has changed, notes the judge with Trump.

In his decision in the trial brought by the firm Perkins Coie, judge Beryll Howell, appointed by former president Barack Obama, also noted that no American president had never targeted a law firm with decrees like Trump.

But, she noted: “With the goal and the effect, this action approaches a manual as old as Shakespeare, who wrote the sentence:” The first thing we do, let’s kill all lawyers. “”

Defend the rule of law

Despite these setbacks, Trump has achieved success with other companies.

At least nine large law firms have concluded agreements with Trump to have an order against them, or to avoid being the target of one. In return, they agreed to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in Pro Bono legal work on the causes of their support and the president.

However, some legal experts wonder if these transactions are legally valid.

Timothy Zick, professor at William and Mary Law School, said that the Trump administration does not seem to worry about whether the decrees against law firms are constitutional.

“As we have seen, many companies will capitulate. And if the judges invalidate the ordinances, the administration will blame the” radical “judges for having interfered with the agenda of the president,” he said in an email.

However, recent judicial decisions demonstrate the strength of the case of law firms against decrees.

“Companies that have concluded” transactions “surely knew this, but have estimated that more harm would come from the fight against the administration than to capitulation,” said Zick.

“An important question is how law firms will be perceived in the future,” he added. “Those who argue can benefit from being perceived as defending not only their own interests, but those of the bar and the rule of law. Those who have withdrew can be perceived as having failed in this regard.”