President Trump announces that his administration has reached a deal with elite law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom during a swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office in March 2025.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
A recent federal court ruling has overturned President Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey, adding to a series of legal victories for firms challenging the president’s punitive actions against prominent law firms.
The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, is the fourth consecutive ruling against Trump’s executive orders aimed at penalizing elite law firms.
Judge AliKhan stated in her decision that the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey was “unconstitutional from beginning to end.”
She emphasized, “Every court that has reviewed a challenge to these orders has found serious constitutional violations and permanently blocked their enforcement. Today, this court joins them in declaring the order targeting Susman unconstitutional and permanently enjoining its enforcement.”
Susman Godfrey expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, stating, “The Court’s ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation.”
The latest ruling represents a strong rejection of Trump’s series of executive orders aimed at prominent law firms since February. The orders have sought to punish firms for representing causes or clients opposed by the president or for employing attorneys he disfavors, such as former special counsel Robert Mueller.
These orders include punitive measures such as suspending security clearances for the firms’ attorneys, restricting their access to government facilities and officials, and terminating government contracts with the firms.
Four law firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—individually filed lawsuits to block Trump’s actions, citing the orders’ unconstitutionality and threat to the legal profession.
In all four lawsuits, judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents have deemed Trump’s orders unconstitutional and permanently blocked their enforcement.
“Let’s kill all the lawyers”
The judges found Trump’s orders to be an infringement on the law firms’ First and Fifth amendment rights and a broader attack on the American legal system.
Judge Richard Leon, appointed by former President George W. Bush, emphasized in his opinion blocking the order against WilmerHale, “The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting.”
He added, “The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no Executive Order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights.”
That changed with Trump, according to the judge.
In her ruling on the Perkins Coie lawsuit, Judge Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, noted, “in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’
Despite these setbacks, Trump has achieved success with other firms. Several major law firms have reached agreements with Trump to either lift an order against them or avoid being targeted. In exchange, they have committed to providing significant pro bono legal services on causes supported by both the firms and the president.
However, some legal experts question the legality of these agreements.
Timothy Zick, a professor at William and Mary Law School, expressed concerns that the Trump administration may not consider the constitutionality of the executive orders against the law firms.
“As we’ve seen many firms will capitulate. And if judges invalidate the orders, the administration will just blame ‘radical’ judges for interfering with the president’s agenda,” he said.
Nevertheless, the recent court rulings highlight the strong legal arguments made by the law firms against the executive orders.
“The firms that cut ‘deals’ surely knew this, but reasoned that more harm would come from fighting the administration than from capitulating,” Zick said.
“A big-picture question is how the law firms will be perceived in the future,” he added. “Those that litigated may benefit from being perceived as defending not just their own interests but those of the Bar and the rule of law. Those that folded may be perceived as having failed in those respects.”
