Susman Godfrey Sues Trump to Block Executive Order Targeting Big Law

WASHINGTON,  D.C –  Susman Godfrey LLP, a prominent U.S. litigation firm, has filed a federal lawsuit to halt an executive order signed by President Donald J. Trump on April 9, 2025, which targets the firm for allegedly “weaponizing” the legal system, degrading elections, and engaging in racial discrimination. The firm calls the order an unconstitutional attack on its ability to represent clients and a broader threat to the rule of law, vowing to fight it in court.

Trump’s executive order, titled “Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey,” imposes sweeping restrictions on the firm, including suspending its lawyers’ security clearances, limiting access to federal buildings, and directing federal agencies to terminate contracts with Susman Godfrey or its clients. It accuses the firm of “spearhead[ing] efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections,” funding groups that “undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology,” and supporting racial discrimination, specifically citing a program allegedly offering financial awards and employment opportunities only to “students of color.” The order claims these actions justify barring Susman Godfrey from federal resources and contracts to protect “critical American interests.”

Key provisions of the order include:

• Security Clearance Review: Directs the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and agency heads to suspend active security clearances held by Susman Godfrey personnel and cease providing government resources, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (Sec. 2).
• Contracting: Requires government contractors to disclose business with Susman Godfrey, directs agencies to review and terminate contracts involving the firm, and mandates a report within 30 days on actions taken (Sec. 3).
• Racial Discrimination: References a prior order against Perkins Coie, signaling continued scrutiny of diversity policies (Sec. 4).
• Personnel Restrictions: Limits Susman Godfrey employees’ access to federal buildings and engagement with government officials, and restricts their hiring by federal agencies unless waived for national security reasons (Sec. 5).

The order asserts it aligns with the administration’s priorities, including Executive Order 14147, aimed at ending the “weaponization” of the federal government, and emphasizes that it does not create enforceable rights against the United States.

On April 11, 2025, Susman Godfrey filed a 66-page complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. The lawsuit names the Executive Office of the President, multiple federal agencies, their heads, and the United States, arguing the order violates the First Amendment (free speech, association, petition), Fifth Amendment (due process, equal protection, right to counsel), and separation of powers. It seeks a declaratory judgment deeming the order unconstitutional and injunctions to block its enforcement, rescind related guidance, and restore normal operations.

The complaint alleges the order retaliates against Susman Godfrey for its representation of Dominion Voting Systems in a $787.5 million defamation settlement with Fox News in 2023 and ongoing cases against figures like Rudy Giuliani and Newsmax Media for 2020 election falsehoods. It denies administering any unlawful diversity program, calling the order’s claims baseless. The firm argues it faces irreparable harm, as one-third of its matters involve federal courts or agencies, and restrictions on courthouse access and client contracts threaten its practice and reputation.

Susman Godfrey issued a statement with the filing, emphasizing the broader stakes:

“The executive order targeting Susman Godfrey is unconstitutional and retaliatory. No administration should be allowed to punish lawyers for simply doing their jobs, protecting Americans and their constitutional right to the legal process. But this goes far beyond law firms and lawyers. Today it is our firm under attack, but tomorrow it could be any of us. As officers of the court, we are duty-bound to take on this fight against the illegal executive order.”

On April 9, 2025, the firm responded to the order’s issuance, affirming its resolve:

“Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it. This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.”

The lawsuit warns that the order sets a “dangerous and perhaps irreversible precedent,” comparing it to an unconstitutional bill of attainder and citing prior court rulings blocking similar orders against big law firms like Perkins Coie and WilmerHale. It argues the order lacks statutory authority and intrudes on judicial powers to sanction attorneys, undermining the independent bar essential to constitutional checks.

This case is part of a series of executive actions by Trump targeting big, politically active law firms, with public reactions split between supporters who view the orders as curbing “lawfare” and critics who see them as assaults on legal freedoms.