Judge Halts Critical Aspects of Trump’s Order Aimed at Law Firm Susman Godfrey
The president has accused the law firm of utilizing the legal system as a weapon and jeopardizing the integrity of elections.
A federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from enforcing key elements of an executive order that targets the prominent law firm Susman Godfrey.
This ruling means that for the time being, the administration is barred from carrying out directives intended to limit the firm’s access to federal facilities and to reevaluate or terminate its government contracts.
The president’s order halted the security clearances of Susman Godfrey employees and prohibited government agencies from employing current staff of the firm without prior approval. Susman’s government contracts were also rescinded.
“I have concluded that action is necessary to address the significant risks, outrageous conduct, and conflicts of interest associated with Susman Godfrey,” the president stated in the order, which is part of a broader initiative by Trump against law firms he has accused of engaging in such practices.
Related Stories
Susman Godfrey contended that Trump’s order was aimed at punishing the firm for its legal representation, including major litigation on behalf of Dominion Voting Systems and state election officials against individuals questioning the 2020 election outcomes.
Trump’s order “clearly violates due process and equal protection rights, including imposing severe consequences without any notification or opportunity for defense; employing vague language that does not clarify for Susman or its clients what actions led to the Order’s unprecedented penalties and how they apply; and targeting Susman for its representation of specific clients and advocacy for certain causes,” states the firm’s memorandum supporting its request for a temporary restraining order.
Susman further argued that Trump’s order infringes on its clients’ Fifth Amendment right to legal counsel, undermines judicial independence, and contradicts the principle of separation of powers.
“Susman will face irreparable harm if immediate relief is not granted, both because the ongoing infringement of its constitutional rights is irreversible and because the Order aims to damage Susman’s reputation, permanently harm its relationships with clients, and cause economic detriment,” asserted the law firm.
The court seemed to concur—at least for the moment, as indicated in the court’s minute entry. The complete text of AliKhan’s ruling has yet to be published.
The ruling followed oral arguments from both sides during an urgent hearing in Washington.
The Department of Justice, representing the Trump administration in the matter, has been instructed to submit a status report by April 16 detailing actions taken to comply with the injunction. A joint status report providing a proposed briefing schedule is required on the same day.
The White House has not responded to a request for comment regarding potential appeal intentions.
