In a tense courtroom showdown on May 8, Susman Godfrey, a high-profile U.S. law firm, challenged an executive order from President Donald Trump, accusing the administration of trampling over constitutional rights in retaliation for its defense of the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. The firm, which represents Dominion Voting Systems in litigation against baseless claims of election fraud, sought a permanent block on the executive order that aimed to punish the firm by restricting access to government officials and canceling federal contracts.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan didn’t mince words during the hearing, questioning a Justice Department lawyer’s defense of the order, demanding proof for any justification behind restricting the firm’s rights. “I’m not trying to browbeat you here, I’m just trying to figure out where the lines are,” AliKhan remarked, pushing for clarity on the administration’s actions.
This case is part of a larger legal battle sparked by Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms with ties to political adversaries. These orders have had mixed results in court, with several being temporarily halted or completely overturned. In early May, another ruling struck down an order against a separate firm, Perkins Coie.
The executive order against Susman Godfrey, issued after the firm became involved in defending the 2020 election results, aims to undermine firms that take on cases opposing Trump’s agenda. According to Donald Verrilli, a lawyer representing the firm, the orders are nothing more than a deliberate attempt to intimidate legal advocates into silence. “That is unconstitutional, full stop,” Verrilli told the court.
The firm filed its lawsuit against the administration last month, arguing that the order violated fundamental constitutional protections, including free speech and due process. Trump’s directive not only restricted Susman Godfrey’s access to government officials but also suspended its lawyers’ security clearances and threatened to pull federal contracts held by its clients.
Judge AliKhan also pressed the government lawyer, Richard Lawson, on the basis of the claims within the order, particularly the allegations of election interference and racial discrimination. Lawson stood by the administration’s position, stating the order fell within the scope of “executive discretion,” but AliKhan was unconvinced, signaling the complexity of the case.
While the Trump administration has faced setbacks in similar legal battles, with multiple orders being blocked or overturned, it continues to push its agenda. Some law firms have settled with the White House, agreeing to provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to avoid further action. AliKhan previously expressed concern that these settlements amounted to “capitulation” to the administration’s tactics.
A final ruling in Susman Godfrey’s case is still pending, but the firm remains determined to secure a win in the face of what it calls a politically motivated attack on its right to represent its clients.
