A federal judge has issued a temporary hold on a recent executive order from Donald Trump that aimed to restrict the federal government from engaging with any entity that hires the law firm Susman Godfrey. This action marks the fourth instance where a court has deemed Trump’s efforts to target specific law firms as potentially unconstitutional.
District Court Judge Loren AliKhan described the executive order as an alarming misuse of power, suggesting that the founding fathers would be appalled by such actions. The firm in question, Susman Godfrey, has significant legal credibility, representing a voting machine company that won a hefty settlement from Fox News over misinformation surrounding Trump’s 2020 election loss.
Trump’s order was reportedly based on the firm’s involvement in electoral matters. Some other legal firms targeted by Trump have since settled, agreeing to provide substantial legal assistance for causes he supports. However, Susman Godfrey and a few others have chosen to challenge these restrictions and have found success in court thus far.
In court, attorney Don Verrilli, representing Susman, urged the judge to take decisive action against what he referred to as a troubling trend. He expressed concern that without the courts stepping in forcefully, the situation could spiral out of control.
Although the restraining order currently lasts for 14 days, Judge AliKhan indicated her belief that Trump’s directive likely infringes upon First and Fifth Amendment rights. She emphasized that the government cannot manipulate or intimidate lawyers into compliance.
On the other hand, Richard Lawson, representing the Department of Justice, defended Trump’s order, arguing that it aligns with historical presidential practices concerning federal contracting. However, he could not persuade the judge to defer her decision while federal agencies sought guidance on the matter.
Judge AliKhan suspended segments of the order that would prohibit federal contractors from working with companies that employ Susman Godfrey. This ruling highlights that Susman Godfrey did not receive prior notice about the federal restrictions, which Trump enacted shortly before another libel trial related to his claims about the 2020 election, this time targeting the conservative outlet Newsmax.
Although other firms have successfully challenged similar orders, Attorney General Pam Bondi has publicly criticized at least one ruling, asserting that federal agencies should retain the discretion to determine their business partnerships.
