A federal judge in Washington ruled on Friday that an executive order signed by President Trump, imposing penalties against the law firm Susman Godfrey, was unconstitutional, permanently barring the government from enforcing its terms.
The decision by Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia effectively ended the president’s campaign to exert pressure on several top law firms in the country.
This ruling marked a perfect record among the firms that challenged the administration in court, resulting in four decisive rulings from four different judges, none of which the Trump administration has appealed to date.
Judge AliKhan, like three of her colleagues in Washington, found that the Trump administration attempted to undermine a law firm representing groups opposed to the president. She stated, “The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed.”
“In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full,” she added.
Among the judges who ruled against the Trump administration, two were nominated by George W. Bush, while the other two were nominated by Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr.
In a statement, Susman Godfrey remarked, “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.”
In April, Mr. Trump targeted Susman Godfrey with an order alleging the firm “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections,” in reference to its involvement in a defamation case against Fox News for Dominion Voting Systems.
Simultaneously, Mr. Trump issued similar orders to other firms, including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block, all associated with prominent Democrats or lawyers who had conflicts with the president during his first term.
The executive orders introduced a range of severe penalties, leveraging the power of the federal government, such as suspending security clearances for certain lawyers at those firms or mandating reviews and cancellations of contracts with those firms. Judges in these cases described the penalties as intentionally designed to significantly harm those firms’ business.
Other law firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom opted for a different strategy, providing millions of dollars in pro bono work for the White House to avoid similar executive action.
With nine firms taking this approach, the White House announced in April that it procured nearly $1 billion in free legal services from elite law firms to support causes aligned with Mr. Trump.
While some firms hesitated to resist, Judge AliKhan’s ruling seemed to validate the opposing strategy, as federal judges have issued final judgments against Mr. Trump’s orders with minimal deliberation, condemning them as blatant intimidation tactics aimed at deterring major legal talents from opposing the president's agenda.
Judge AliKhan emphasized that the orders, in addition to being clearly illegal, sought to minimize access to legal representation and suppress any opposition to the president. “Here, the Order goes beyond violating the Constitution and the laws of the United States,” she stated. “The Order threatens the independence of the bar — a necessity for the rule of law.”