Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—State attorneys general support Susman Godfrey in challenge to executive order targeting firm, (Apr 28, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The states raised constitutional arguments against the administration’s allegedly retaliatory actions.

Twenty-one states filed an amici curiae brief in support of Susman Godfrey’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the Trump administration’s executive actions targeting the firm for its advocacy. The states argue that, as the court already observed in granting a temporary restraining order, the administration’s executive order targeting Susman Godfrey punishes the firm for its purported “efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.”

Constitutional arguments. The states argue that, as the court already preliminarily concluded in issuing its temporary restraining order, the executive order targeting the firm is unconstitutional several times over, violating the First Amendment by retaliating against Susman Godfrey for its protected speech and association and by discriminating based on viewpoint. The states argue that the executive order disregards the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment by interfering with the right to effective counsel and to the counsel of one’s choice. The states further argue that the executive order offends other basic constitutional principles, including the separation of powers and the right to due process. These defects entitle the firm to declaratory relief and a permanent injunction, the brief argues.

Public interest. The states called on their experience in emphasizing that permanent injunctive relief is strongly in the public interest in this case, as “a just and well-functioning judicial system depends on the willingness of lawyers to take on difficult cases or unpopular clients without retribution by their government.” Attempts to deter attorneys from representing the full spectrum of clients undermines the judicial systems in the amici states, which depend on an informed, independent bar to ensure an informed, independent judiciary. The order also threatens directly the states’ government operations by allowing the administration to target other attorneys who challenge the administration’s policies in court. The states urged the court to enter summary judgment in favor of Susman Godfrey.

Statements. “Everybody is entitled to legal access and vigorous representation without fear of retribution. The Trump Administration’s political attack on Susman Godfrey based on the clients and ideas they represent is an attempt to silence people who challenge the President. If allowed to continue, this will have an immediate chilling effect on attorneys nationwide, making it harder for lawyers to provide the critical legal services on which our courts and residents depend,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Along with my fellow attorneys general, I proudly stand in support of Susman Godfrey and all other law firms whose free speech rights are being targeted and strongly condemn President Trump’s effort to silence those he disagrees with.”

“The Trump administration cannot dictate which clients or issues law firms represent and support,” said New York Attorney General Leticia James. “These vindictive Executive Orders targeting law firms are a gross abuse of power and undermine our democracy and our Constitution.”

The case is No. 1:25-cv-01107-LLA.

News: LitigationNewsTrends Discrimination GovernmentContracts IndividualRights IndustryNewsTrends