On Monday, Susman Godfrey LLP filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, requesting immediate action to block the enforcement of what the firm deems an “unconstitutional” executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The order revokes the firm’s access to federal government resources, a move the firm argues is a direct act of retaliation against its legal representation of clients and causes disfavored by the president.
The law firm, which recently became the fourth major legal entity to challenge the administration over similar executive orders, is seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the government from restricting its access to crucial government resources and buildings. While the firm noted that none of its attorneys currently maintain security clearances for ongoing matters, it emphasized the broader, harmful impact of the order.
“The April 9th executive order is a clear retaliatory action against Susman Godfrey’s protected legal advocacy, specifically targeting our work on cases that the president opposes, including our representation of Dominion Voting Systems following the 2020 election,” the firm said in its legal filing.
The firm’s legal motion describes the order as a “blatantly unconstitutional” overreach, citing violations of the First Amendment, which safeguards the right to free expression and legal advocacy. The firm argues that the order discriminates against Susman Godfrey based on its professional viewpoints, including its pro bono work, and seeks to suppress disfavored expression.
In its complaint, Susman Godfrey contends that President Trump is “abusing the powers of his office” by using executive orders to retaliate against law firms that represent clients or causes with which he disagrees. The firm further warns that if allowed to stand, this executive order will set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for future administrations to use such power to target perceived political enemies.
“Unless the judiciary intervenes immediately, this executive order and others like it could establish an irreversible precedent,” Susman Godfrey said. “It is vital that the court take swift action to repudiate these unconstitutional orders and protect the foundational principles of legal independence.”
Susman Godfrey’s lawsuit echoes similar challenges raised by law firms Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and others, who have sought legal relief from similar executive orders. The court’s ruling on the firm’s request for a temporary restraining order is scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday afternoon.
The firm is represented in its legal action by a team from Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, including prominent attorneys Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Elaine J. Goldenberg, and several others.
