Instant Insight
30-Second Take
- A fourth federal judge has blocked an executive order by Donald Trump targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey.
- The order was deemed unconstitutional and permanently blocked by U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan.
- This ruling follows similar decisions against other elite law firms, including Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale.
+ Dive Deeper
Quick Brief
2-Minute Digest
Essential Context
In a significant blow to President Trump’s efforts to punish law firms for their legal work, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan has ruled that the executive order against Susman Godfrey is unconstitutional. This decision marks the fourth consecutive time a federal judge has permanently blocked one of President Trump’s executive orders targeting elite law firms.
Core Players
- Donald Trump – President Trump issuing the executive orders
- Susman Godfrey – Law firm represented in the recent ruling
- U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan – Judge who ruled the order unconstitutional
- Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale – Other law firms targeted by similar orders
Key Numbers
- 4 – Number of federal judges who have blocked President Trump’s executive orders against law firms
- 2025 – Year in which these rulings have been made
- $100s of millions – Amounts in free legal services some firms agreed to provide to avoid orders
+ Full Analysis
Full Depth
Complete Coverage
The Catalyst
The latest ruling against President Trump’s executive order stems from his administration’s attempts to punish law firms for their legal work, particularly those firms that have taken positions or represented clients opposed to President Trump’s policies.
Susman Godfrey, for instance, represented Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation lawsuit against Fox News, which ended in a significant settlement.
Inside Forces
President Trump’s executive orders have targeted several elite law firms, including Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale, citing various reasons such as their association with prosecutors who investigated President Trump or their support for causes contrary to President Trump’s administration.
These orders have sought to impose sanctions like suspending security clearances and restricting access to federal buildings.
Power Dynamics
The consistent blocking of these orders by federal judges underscores the judiciary’s role in checking executive power. Judges have uniformly found these orders to violate the U.S. Constitution, specifically the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan’s ruling echoed this sentiment, stating that the order “seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like.”
Outside Impact
The broader implications of these rulings include a reaffirmation of the legal system’s independence and the protection of lawyers’ rights to represent clients without fear of retribution from the government.
These decisions also highlight the ongoing tension between the executive branch and the judiciary, particularly in cases where the administration seeks to exert influence over the legal profession.
Future Forces
As the legal battles continue, it is likely that more law firms will challenge similar executive orders. The consistent judicial pushback suggests that such orders will face significant legal hurdles.
The long-term impact could include a more defined boundary between executive power and judicial oversight, ensuring that the legal system remains a check on governmental actions.
Data Points
- March 25, 2025: President Trump issues Executive Order 14246 targeting Jenner & Block.
- May 2025: Judge John D. Bates rules that the executive order against Jenner & Block is unconstitutional.
- June 27, 2025: Judge Loren AliKhan blocks the executive order against Susman Godfrey.
- Multiple firms have reached settlements to avoid similar orders, committing to hundreds of millions in free legal services.
The series of rulings against President Trump’s executive orders targeting elite law firms underscores the judiciary’s critical role in protecting constitutional rights and ensuring the independence of the legal system. As these legal challenges continue, they will likely shape the boundaries of executive power and the relationship between the government and the legal profession.
