A federal judge imposed a temporary restraining order on Tuesday, blocking significant portions of President Donald Trump’s directive that prevents the federal government from conducting business with entities employing the law firm Susman Godfrey. This marks the fourth instance where judicial authorities have deemed the president’s actions against law firms potentially unconstitutional. District Court Judge Loren AliKhan, overseeing the case, described the presidential order as a shocking misuse of power, reminiscent of the concerns held by the constitution’s framers.
The Susman Godfrey firm represents a voting machine company that secured a substantial $787 billion settlement from Fox News over false claims regarding Trump’s 2020 election defeat. Trump’s executive order specifically cited the firm’s involvement in election-related work as a basis for targeting. Although several other law firms have reached settlements, agreeing to provide significant pro bono legal services for causes favored by the president, Susman Godfrey and three others have opted to contest the order in court, where they have been successful so far.
During the court proceedings, Don Verrilli, representing Susman Godfrey, urged the judge to maintain the firm’s legal victories, expressing concern over the rapid deterioration of legal norms. Though the restraining order is initially valid for 14 days, Judge AliKhan expressed strong doubts about the constitutionality of the executive order, suggesting it likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. She asserted that the government cannot coerce lawyers into compliance.
Richard Lawson, representing the Department of Justice, argued that the order aligns with a historical precedent of presidential decisions regarding federal contracting, tracing back to policies initiated under President Lyndon B. Johnson aimed at preventing discrimination by federal contractors. However, Lawson’s argument failed to persuade the judge, who refused to delay her decision until federal agencies could provide guidance on implementing the order.
The restraining order halts provisions of the executive order that prohibit federal contracts with companies hiring Susman Godfrey and restrict their employees from accessing federal buildings. Verrilli highlighted that Susman Godfrey was neither warned nor given an explanation for the federal order, which coincidentally preceded another libel trial concerning Trump’s 2020 election claims, this time involving Newsmax, a network associated with a Trump ally. While other firms have also succeeded in temporarily blocking orders against them, Attorney General Pam Bondi criticized at least one of these firms, asserting that federal agencies still have the discretion to choose their collaborators.
The Bigger Picture
The legal challenges and subsequent court rulings against President Trump’s executive order underscore significant implications for the legal industry and federal contracting landscape. Should such orders stand, they could set a precedent that affects firms involved in politically sensitive cases, potentially influencing their willingness to engage in litigation against powerful entities.
For businesses and contractors, the ongoing legal battles could lead to uncertainty in federal procurement processes, affecting their operations and strategic planning. Additionally, these developments may heighten concerns over the politicization of legal services and federal contracting, prompting calls for clearer legal protections and guidelines to navigate the intersection of law, politics, and business.
