Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Susman Godfrey files suit against Trump administration, (Apr 14, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

"Put simply," the law firm alleges, "this could be any of us."

Last week, after President Trump issued an executive order targeting Susman Godfrey and requiring security clearance review and termination of contracts as it has with other firms, the law firm filed suit against the Executive Office of the President and various agencies, agency leaders, and commission chairs setting forth multiple claims under the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as claims of ultra vires Presidential action.

Abuse of power. The complaint, filed on April 11, 2025, in D.C. federal court, begins:

• "In America we have, in the words of John Adams, a government of laws and not men. President Trump's campaign of Executive Orders against law firms and others, including the Executive Order he signed on April 9, 2025 against Susman Godfrey, is a grave threat to this foundational premise of our Republic. The President is abusing the powers of his office to wield the might of the Executive Branch in retaliation against organizations and people that he dislikes. Nothing in our Constitution or laws grants a President such power; to the contrary, the specific provisions and overall design of our Constitution were adopted in large measure to ensure that presidents cannot exercise arbitrary, absolute power in the way that the President seeks to do in these Executive Orders."

The firm exhorts the judiciary to step in to "repudiate this blatantly unconstitutional Executive Order and the others like it," warning that if it does not, "a dangerous and perhaps irreversible precedent will be set." They warn that "someday a different president with an entirely different set of policy priorities and personal grievances will sit behind the Resolute Desk" and that if the order is "allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they seek to retaliate against a different set of perceived foes. What for two centuries has been beyond the pale will become the new normal."

"Put simply," the complaint adds, "this could be any of us."

Necessity of an independent bar. "The Executive Order makes no secret of its unconstitutional retaliatory and discriminatory intent to punish Susman Godfrey for its work defending the integrity of the 2020 presidential election," they allege. They also state, "An independent private bar is fundamental to the rule of law in this Nation and to the proper functioning of the independent Judiciary."

The executive order. Indeed, in the President's order, issued on April 9, 2025, the president contends that the law firm "spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections," "funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology," "supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race," and also "itself engages in unlawful discrimination."

Representation of voting system provider. Notably, Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News based on Fox commentators' claims that Dominion's voting machines were part of a conspiracy in the 2020 election to steal votes from Trump. That lawsuit was settled in 2023, with Fox News agreeing to pay $787.5 million.

Last week, Susman Godfrey warned of its plans to combat the order, issuing a statement in response to the executive order: "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."

Similar previous orders. Previous executive orders of this nature are likewise being challenged in the courts, including lawsuits by Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Perkins Coie. The courts in each of those cases have entered temporary restraining orders enjoining implementation of certain sections of the orders (see TROs in Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale).

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

News: LitigationNewsTrends IndividualRights FedTracker LaborEmployment WhiteHouseNews GCNNews