A DC federal judge on Thursday questioned the rationale for President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting law firm Susman Godfrey.
The April 9 order states the law firm “engages in unlawful discrimination” yet points to no examples that show such behavior, Judge Loren AliKhan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia said. “I just don’t see any evidence of that.”
AliKhan also questioned whether Trump was using his discretionary power to deny contracts to Susman clients, or if he was engaging in viewpoint discrimination because he doesn’t like positions the firm has taken. “I’m just trying to figure out where the lines are,” she said.
The hearing on whether AliKhan should strike down Trump’s order as unconstitutional followed the pattern of those in other courtrooms, with judges sounding skeptical of Trump’s authority to target law firms with the executive actions. US District Court Judge Beryl Howell on May 2 permanently blocked the order against Perkins Coie.
Susman sued the Trump administration last month, arguing that the order against the firm is vindictive, retaliatory, and violates the constitution. Similar to the directives against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, the Susman order instructed agency heads to strip lawyers’ security clearances, restrict personnel from accessing federal buildings, and slash federal contracts held by the firm’s clients.
Houston-founded Susman is asking AliKhan to grant summary judgment to strike down the order without proceeding to a full trial.
The purpose of Trump’s orders is “to intimidate law firms into abandoning advocacy on behalf of their clients,” said Donald Verrilli, a Munger Tolles & Olsen lawyer representing Susman at Thursday’s hearing. “That is unconstitutional full stop, no matter what the motivation is.”
Richard Lawson, a deputy associate attorney general, told AliKhan that determinations such as who can be a contractor or who has access to government buildings are completely within the authority of the president.
“This is executive discretion,” Lawson said. “There is no inherent right of access.”
Nine top law firms, including Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis, Willkie Farr, and Latham & Watkins, reached agreements to collectively provide $940 million in free legal services for President Donald Trump to avoid executive orders. Some of the firms also resolved Equal Employment Opportunity Commission inquiries into their diversity programs.
The case is Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President, D.D.C., 1:25-cv-01107, 5/8/2025.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story: