Susman Godfrey Lawsuit Against the Executive Order

Susman Godfrey’s lawsuit against the executive order targeting the firm ended in a decisive win at the trial court: on June 27, 2025, Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down Executive Order 14263 in its entirety as unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement.¹ The government appealed, and the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments on May 14, 2026. The injunction remains in effect while that appeal is pending.²

What the Executive Order Did

President Trump signed Executive Order 14263, “Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey,” on April 9, 2025. The order accused the firm of “activities detrimental to critical American interests” and directed federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by anyone at the firm, cut off access to government buildings, terminate government contracts involving the firm, and stop hiring its employees. Contractors doing business with the federal government were required to disclose any dealings with Susman Godfrey, and agencies were told to “take appropriate steps to terminate” contracts involving the firm’s services.³

Why the Firm Was Targeted

The order’s national-interest language masked what the district court later identified as its actual grounds. Susman Godfrey had represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation suit against Fox News over false claims about the 2020 election, which produced a $787.5 million settlement in 2023.⁴ The administration also cited the firm’s donations to GLAD, an LGBTQ advocacy organization, and its diversity initiatives, particularly the Susman Godfrey Prize, a scholarship for law students of color.¹

Susman Godfrey was the fourth firm hit by an order of this kind. In March and April 2025, similar orders targeted Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block, each restricting security clearances, building access, and government contracts based on the firms’ representation choices and DEI practices.⁵

Filing the Lawsuit

Two days after the order was signed, Susman Godfrey filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President (Civil Action No. 25-1107), was assigned to Judge AliKhan, and the firm was represented by Munger, Tolles & Olson.⁶

The amended complaint raised ten counts. Four rested on the First Amendment: retaliation for protected expression, viewpoint discrimination, interference with the right to petition, and interference with free association. Four rested on the Fifth Amendment: procedural due process, fair notice, right to counsel, and equal protection. The last two challenged the order as exceeding presidential authority and violating the separation of powers.¹ Citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in NRA v. Vullo, the firm argued the order was unconstitutional coercion aimed at intimidating the wider legal profession.⁷

The Temporary Restraining Order

Susman Godfrey moved for a TRO on April 14. Judge AliKhan held a hearing the next day and granted it on April 15, blocking enforcement of Sections 1, 3, and 5 of the order.⁶ The ruling required the government to rescind any implementing guidance, notify affected agencies, and stop demanding contractor disclosures about business with the firm.⁸ From the bench, Judge AliKhan called the order a “shocking abuse of power” driven by the president’s “personal vendetta” against the firm.⁹

The Permanent Injunction

On June 27, 2025, Judge AliKhan issued a 206-page memorandum opinion granting summary judgment to Susman Godfrey and permanently enjoining the executive order. The court found the order violated the First Amendment through retaliation and viewpoint discrimination; violated the Fifth Amendment’s protections of due process, fair notice, equal protection, and the right to counsel; and exceeded the president’s constitutional authority under Article II and the separation of powers.¹

Applying NRA v. Vullo, the court concluded that while the president may voice opinions, “the government cannot use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Judge AliKhan found the order was designed to penalize the firm specifically for representing Dominion, donating to GLAD, and maintaining DEI initiatives, and that the administration had given the firm no notice and no opportunity to respond before imposing what she described as “crippling sanctions.”¹

The government had argued that blanket security clearance revocations were beyond judicial review. The court rejected that argument, distinguishing this case from individual, discretionary clearance decisions and treating it as a challenge to a blanket retaliatory policy. The injunction requires the government to cease all implementation of the order, rescind any related guidance, and refrain from relying on its findings to justify adverse actions against the firm or its clients.¹ Judge AliKhan wrote that the order “goes beyond violating the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The Order threatens the independence of the bar — a necessity for the rule of law.”¹⁰

The Appeal and Its Strange Detour

The government appealed, and the Susman Godfrey case was consolidated with the other law firm challenges and with Zaid v. Executive Office of the President, a related security clearance case.¹¹

On March 2, 2026, the Justice Department filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Susman Godfrey declared the case closed, stating: “The Government has capitulated, which is a fitting end to its plainly unconstitutional attack on Susman Godfrey and the rule of law.”¹² The next day, the government reversed course and moved to withdraw its dismissal, choosing to proceed with the appeal.¹³

A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases on May 14, 2026. Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard pressed the government on whether a president could deny security clearances based on a firm’s client base, and Judge Sri Srinivasan asked whether the administration maintained that a president could deny clearances based solely on race. The Justice Department argued that security clearance decisions are committed to the president under Article II and are unreviewable, with Congress’s remedies limited to impeachment or legislation. Paul Clement, representing the law firms, said the orders “strike at the heart of the ability of lawyers to zealously represent their clients.”⁵ As of mid-2026, the D.C. Circuit has not issued its ruling.²

The Firm Expanded the Program the Order Cited

Rather than pull back the diversity program the administration cited as evidence of discrimination, Susman Godfrey expanded it. In May 2025, the firm raised the Susman Godfrey Prize from $3,500 to $4,000 per recipient and increased the number of scholarships from 20 to 25. At a May 8 hearing, Judge AliKhan noted that the prize is “an academic award and not part of any condition of employment” and therefore not a violation of Title VII, the federal employment discrimination statute the administration had invoked.¹⁴

How the Other Targeted Firms Fared

Every firm that litigated won at the district court level:

Perkins Coie: Judge Beryl A. Howell granted summary judgment on May 2, 2025, declaring the order “null and void” and describing it as an “unprecedented attack” intended to force lawyers to “stick to the party line, or else.”¹⁵
Jenner & Block: Judge John D. Bates granted summary judgment on May 23, 2025, calling the order “an unconstitutional act of retaliation” meant to “chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like.”¹⁵
WilmerHale: The court held the order unconstitutional in a memorandum opinion on May 27, 2025.¹⁶

Other firms took a different path. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison struck a deal with the administration in March 2025 to have its order rescinded, agreeing to abandon its DEI policies, submit to an employment practices audit, and provide $40 million in pro bono legal services supporting administration initiatives during Trump’s term. Nine firms in total reached settlements with the administration to avoid or resolve similar orders.¹⁷ Susman Godfrey’s appellate brief pointed to that dynamic as evidence of unconstitutional coercion, arguing that other firms had been “compelled to negotiate” pro bono services to escape being targeted.⁷

1
FindLaw. Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President
2
Civil Rights Clearinghouse. Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President
3
White House. Addressing Risks From Susman Godfrey
4
Houston Public Media. Trump’s Order Targeting Houston-Based Law Firm Susman Godfrey Found Unconstitutional
5
Roll Call. Appeals Court Questions Trump Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms
6
CourtListener. Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President
7
Susman Godfrey. Brief Responding to Government’s Appeal of Executive Order Ruling
8
Susman Godfrey. TRO Granted
9
JURIST. US Federal Judge Freezes Executive Order Penalizing Law Firm Susman Godfrey
10
Munger, Tolles & Olson. Munger Tolles Olson Obtains Permanent Injunction Against Executive Order in Win for Susman Godfrey
11
ACLU DC. Zaid v. Executive Office of the President
12
Susman Godfrey. Case Closed: Susman Godfrey’s Response to Government’s Dismissal of Appeal in Executive Order Litigation
13
Susman Godfrey. Filings Relating to the Administration’s Executive Order Against Susman Godfrey
14
Texas Lawbook. Defying Political Backlash, Susman Godfrey Expands Diversity Scholarship Amid Legal Battle With Trump Administration
15
Demand Justice. Judges Strike Down Trump’s Unprecedented and Unconstitutional Power Grab Against Law Firms
16
ACLU DC. Perkins Coie LLP v. US Department of Justice, Jenner & Block LLP v. US Dept of Justice, WilmerHale v. Executive Office of the President
17
New York Times. Trump Executive Orders Law Firms