Filings and activity related to the case:
- Court Order Granting Summary Judgement, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et. al. (United States District Court – District of Columbia) June 27, 2025,
- Transcript of Hearing on Susman Godfrey’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et. al. (United States District Court – District of Columbia) May 8, 2025.
- Susman Godfrey Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et. al. (United States District Court – District of Columbia) May 5, 2025.
- Susman Godfrey Opposition to Government’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint Against Executive Order, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et. al. (United States District Court – District of Columbia) April 30, 2025.
- Susman Godfrey Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et. al. (United States District Court – District of Columbia) April 23, 2025.
- Suman Godfrey Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et. al. (United States District Court – District of Columbia) April 23, 2025.
- Supporting Declarations
- Transcript of TRO Hearing before Hon. Loren L. Alikhan, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et. al. (United States District Court – District of Columbia) April 15, 2025.
- Temporary Restraining Order – Scheduling Order, Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et. al. (United States District Court – District of Columbia) April 15, 2025.
- Court-Issued Temporary Restraining Order. Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et. al. (United States District Court – District of Columbia) April 15, 2025.
- Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et. al. (United States District Court – District of Columbia) Filed April 14, 2025.
- Amended Complaint: Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President et. al. (United States District Court – District of Columbia) Filed April 11, 2025.
Statements on behalf of Susman Godfrey:
- Statement from Susman Godfrey on Day Court Granting Summary Judgment, June 27, 2025: “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. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey’s lawyers and staff live these values every day. We are also deeply appreciative of those who supported us in this lawsuit, including our superb legal team at Munger, Tolles & Olson and the thousands of lawyers, former judges, law professors, and law students who submitted amicus briefs.”
- Statement from Susman Godfrey on Day Court Issued a TRO, April 15, 2025: “This fight is bigger and more important than any one firm. Susman Godfrey is fighting this unconstitutional executive order because it infringes on the rights of all Americans and the rule of law. This fight is right, it is just, and we are duty-bound to pursue it. We are grateful the court directly addressed the unconstitutionality of the executive order by recognizing it as a ‘shocking abuse of power.’”
- Statement from Susman Godfrey on Day TRO was Filed, April 14, 2025: “Susman Godfrey is seeking immediate relief from the administration’s unconstitutional executive order. The order threatens the rights of our clients, including their right to legal counsel, while causing irreparable harm to Susman Godfrey.”
- Statement from Susman Godfrey on Day Complaint was Filed, April 11, 2025: “The executive order targeting Susman Godfrey is unconstitutional and retaliatory. No administration should be allowed to punish lawyers for simply doing their jobs, protecting Americans and their constitutional right to the legal process. But this goes far beyond law firms and lawyers. Today it is our firm under attack, but tomorrow it could be any of us. As officers of the court, we are duty-bound to take on this fight against the illegal executive order.“
- Statement from Susman Godfrey on Day Executive Order was Issued, April 9, 2025: Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it. This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.”
Media Coverage:
- “Judge Strikes Down Trump Order Targeting Another Top Law Firm“, The New York Times (June 27, 2025)
- “US law firm Susman Godfrey defeats Trump executive order”, Reuters (June 27, 2025)
- “Judge finds Trump executive order punishing Susman Godfrey law firm unconstitutional”, CBS News (June 27, 2025)
- “More than 1,100 law students back Susman Godfrey in its lawsuit over Trump order”, Reuters (April 29, 2025)
- “Law Firm Partners Back Susman Godfrey in Lawsuit Over Trump Executive Order”, Reuters (April 25, 2025)
- “Susman Godfrey Seeks Summary Judgment in Suit Fighting Trump Executive Order”, National Law Journal (April 24, 2025)
- “Federal judge calls Trump’s order targeting prominent law firm a ‘shocking abuse of power'”, NBC (April 16, 2025)
- “‘Shocking Abuse of Power’: Judge Issues TRO Against Trump’s Executive Order Targeting Susman Godfrey”, The American Lawyer, April 15, 2025.
- “Judge Blocks Trump From Retaliating Against Another Top Law Firm”, The New York Times (April 15, 2025)
Amicus Briefs:
Numerous briefs have been filed by amicus curiae — or friends of the court – in support of Susman Godfrey’s action. These include briefs by law firms, former judges, law professors and thousands of individuals. Read the briefs here:
- 884 Law Firms
- 1129 Law Students
- 366 Former Judges
- 777 Solo and Small Firm Lawyers
- 775 Law Professors
- 23 Nongovernmental Organizations
- Law Firm Partners United Inc.
- Litigation Firms
- Former and Current General Counsels
- NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
- American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, Cato Institute, Center for Individual Rights, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Institute for Justice, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, National Coalition Against Censorship, Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, Rutherford Institute, and Society for the Rule of Law Institute
- Lawyers Defending American Democracy
- Attorney Generals from Washington, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island And Vermont
- Former Presidents of the District of Columbia Bar, and Past Presidents of Voluntary Bar Associations, and Voluntary Bar Associations in the District of Columbia
- Former Senior Government Officials
- Bar Associations and Lawyer Membership Associations in Support if Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and for Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief
- Institute for the Rule of Law, an independent arm of the International Lawyers’ Association
- Ethics Professors
- Amicus Brief of Prof. Aaron H. Caplan
- Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Service Employees International Union, American Federation Of Teachers, American Association of University Professors, Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice, Race and Law Centers, and Civil Rights and Advocacy Organizations
- Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Public Counsel, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Public Interest Law Center, Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Mississippi Center for Justice, and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area