In a striking series of legal setbacks, President Donald Trump’s attempts to impose financial penalties on prominent Biglaw firms through Executive Orders have been unanimously ruled unconstitutional across various court challenges. From the onset, legal experts and commentators criticized these actions as retaliatory measures against firms that engaged in legal cases or supported causes disfavored by President Trump.

Recently, Susman Godfrey emerged victorious in court, joining the ranks of Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—firms that have successfully defended their rights against these controversial orders. In a decisive ruling last Friday, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan granted Susman Godfrey’s motion for summary judgment, marking yet another defeat for the Trump administration’s targeted Executive Orders.

Judge AliKhan’s decision underscored the constitutional breaches involved, particularly highlighting violations of the First Amendment. The court emphasized that the targeted activities, including litigation related to the 2020 election and various public statements by the firms, were "plainly protected by the First Amendment." The ruling stated, “Defendants cannot target Susman for those activities simply because it does not like them."

Furthermore, the court found that the Executive Order infringed upon the firm’s due process rights. It interfered with the attorneys' ability to practice their profession, damaged the firm’s reputation, and deprived it of contractual relationships with clients—without any prior notice or opportunity for the firm to respond or clear its name.

A spokesperson from Susman Godfrey responded to the ruling with strong approval, 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. We applaud the Court for declaring the administration’s order unconstitutional." The firm acknowledged the broad support from the legal community, including numerous amicus briefs from lawyers, former judges, law professors, and law students.

This series of legal defeats highlights the ongoing tension between the executive branch and the legal profession, particularly regarding the defense of constitutional rights against perceived executive overreach. The legal community continues to watch closely as the implications of these rulings unfold, reinforcing the judiciary's role in upholding fundamental legal protections against powerful political figures.