Judge Strikes Down Trump Order Targeting Law Firm Susman Godfrey

In a sweeping rebuke of President Donald Trump’s campaign of retribution against law firms that challenged his political agenda, a federal judge Friday struck down in its entirety an executive order issued by Trump that targeted a powerful law firm.

The judge declared the order unconstitutional and permanently blocked its enforcement.

The order, issued in April, had sought to isolate the law firm Susman Godfrey from virtually all interactions with the federal government, accusing it of “weaponizing the legal system.” In response, Susman Godfrey immediately filed suit.

U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan, appointed by President Joe Biden, ruled unequivocally in favor of the firm.

“Executive Order 14,263 is unconstitutional and therefore null and void,” AliKhan wrote. “Defendants are permanently enjoined from implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to Executive Order 14,263 in any way.”

The court further declared that agencies and officials must immediately reverse all actions taken under the order — including security clearance suspensions, terminated contracts and active investigations.

The Department of Justice and Attorney General Pamela Bondi were ordered to “provide a copy of this Order to all Defendants and direct the recipients to comply with the terms of this Order,” warning that “they are bound by the court’s order, under penalty of contempt.”

In one of the more striking mandates, Judge AliKhan ordered the federal government to inform all relevant staff that “Executive Order 14,263 is unlawful, null and void in its entirety and that all departments, agencies, officers, staff, employees, and contractors of the federal government should carry on with their ordinary course of business with Susman Godfrey LLP as if Executive Order 14,263 had not issued.”

The court instructed all relevant officials to file a status report within two business days certifying their compliance.

The judge found that the executive order was not only unlawful but issued specifically to punish the firm for exercising its constitutional rights.

In her opinion, AliKhan wrote that “it is clear from the face of the Order and the record in this case that the Order was issued in response to Susman’s First-Amendment-protected activities.” She emphasized that “[t]he First Amendment prohibits the government from both ‘impos[ing] prior restraints on speech’ and from subjecting individuals to ‘retaliatory actions’ after the fact for having engaged in protected speech.”

The court rejected the administration’s argument that the order was simply government speech.

AliKhan added that Susman had “amply demonstrated” that the administration’s actions would deter any law firm “from speaking again,” and described the executive order as a direct threat to the firm’s “reputation and client relationships.”

This marks the fourth federal court decision to strike down a Trump-era order targeting a law firm over political grievances. Previous orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale were also voided on constitutional grounds.