Federal Lawsuit

Susman Godfrey v. Trump - Law Firm EO Challenge

Susman Godfrey challenged the EO targeting it, allegedly for a $3,000-$4,999 donation to LGBTQ advocacy group GLAD. Judge Alikhan granted summary judgment and permanent injunction, finding the EO 'violates the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and threatens the independence of the bar.' Court found no statutory or constitutional basis for targeting a law firm for its choice of clients or donations.

Ruling Against

Case Details

Susman Godfrey challenged the EO targeting it, allegedly for a $3,000-$4,999 donation to LGBTQ advocacy group GLAD. Judge Alikhan granted summary judgment and permanent injunction, finding the EO 'violates the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and threatens the independence of the bar.' Court found no statutory or constitutional basis for targeting a law firm for its choice of clients or donations.

Date Filed

2025-04-11

Status

Ruling Against

Court

U.S. District Court, District of Columbia

Outcome

Summary judgment and permanent injunction granted; EO found unconstitutional

Related Executive Actions (1)

Executive Orders Targeting WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey

Targeted law firms for having employed members of the Mueller investigation team or for representing clients disfavored by Trump. Susman Godfrey was targeted for a $3,000-$4,999 donation to LGBTQ advocacy group GLAD. Courts ruled the EOs unconstitutional, violating First Amendment rights. All told, law firm pro bono commitments to the White House totalled $940 million.

Blocked
Executive OrderJudiciary
Department of Justice
3 challenges2025-03-07

Plaintiffs / Parties

  • Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Munger, Tolles & Olson (counsel)
←Back to Actions & Pushback