The clash between U.S. law firms and the Trump administration over executive orders escalated on Friday, as another prominent firm, Susman Godfrey, filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the president’s sanctions. The firm’s legal action comes as five other top firms, under increasing pressure, entered into costly settlements with the White House to avert further punitive measures.
Susman Godfrey’s lawsuit, filed in Washington, claims that the executive orders, which target firms like theirs, violate constitutional rights and set a dangerous precedent for future administrations. The firm argues that if allowed to stand, these orders would empower future presidents to retaliate against any perceived adversary, a move the firm decries as politically motivated. The suit specifically points to the firm’s role in representing Dominion Voting Systems in defamation lawsuits related to Trump’s baseless claims about the 2020 election.
The Trump administration has accused these law firms of “weaponizing” the legal system in opposition to the president’s agenda. The executive orders restrict the firms’ access to government buildings, target federal contracts, and threaten to impose severe consequences based on the firms’ involvement in high-profile cases opposing Trump’s policies.
While Susman Godfrey challenges these orders in court, Trump took to social media to announce that five other law firms had agreed to contribute more than $600 million in pro bono work in exchange for the White House’s leniency. These concessions bring the total pledged funds to $940 million, marking a dramatic shift in how major firms are aligning with Trump’s policies. The agreements, which largely mirror those signed by firms earlier this year, include commitments to abandon certain diversity-based hiring practices and take on legal work that aligns with the administration’s “America First” agenda.
Among the firms that settled are Kirkland & Ellis, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher, Latham & Watkins, and Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft. Each firm has agreed to contribute significant pro bono legal services to causes supported by Trump, with Kirkland & Ellis and Simpson Thacher each committing to $125 million in services. Trump has touted these settlements as a major victory, boasting that the firms “have paid a lot of money in legal fees” and may soon be called upon for trade negotiations amid the administration’s ongoing tariff initiatives.
In response, some of the firms involved in the settlements have assured their internal teams that they will maintain control over the pro bono cases they undertake. Kirkland & Ellis and Simpson Thacher have both issued statements to their staff, clarifying that their participation in these agreements does not compromise their independence in selecting pro bono matters.
The legal challenges to Trump’s executive orders are not limited to Susman Godfrey. Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block have all filed lawsuits of their own, arguing that the orders infringe on their constitutional rights, particularly in terms of free speech and due process. Initial rulings have sided with the firms, suggesting that the executive orders may indeed violate constitutional protections. In a notable development, Paul Weiss reached a settlement without facing an executive order, agreeing to donate $40 million in legal services.
The growing list of firms challenging the Trump administration has garnered support from more than 800 lawyers and legal organizations, who have filed briefs in support of the lawsuits. These briefs argue that the executive orders are blatant retaliation and pose a significant threat to the independence of law firms, particularly those that represent vulnerable communities.
With 20 Democratic-led states also weighing in, the situation has sparked a nationwide debate about the limits of presidential power and its impact on the legal profession. As the lawsuits continue to unfold, the broader implications for the legal system remain uncertain, with many questioning whether the Trump administration’s actions could make it harder for individuals and groups to find legal representation in the future.
