President Trump announces that his administration has reached an agreement with the law firm Elite Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Duration, an entrance ceremony in the Oval office in March 2025.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Hiding place
alternate
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
A federal judge has noted the executive order of President Trump aimed at the law firm Susman Godfrey, delivering the latest of a series of legal victories for the companies that have challenged the president’s punitive campaign against the great law.
The Friday ruling of the United States District Judge, Loren Alikhan, marks the fourth time of four that a federal judge has permanently blocked one of Trump’s executive orders that seek to punish an elite law firm.
Judge Alikhan said in his ruling that the executive order against Susman Godfrey “is unconstitutional from beginning to end.”
“Every court that has considered a challenge for one of these orders has found that they gave constitutional violations and the permanently ordered application of the order in its entirety,” he wrote. “Today, this Court follows the lawsuit, concluding that the order addressed to Susman violates the constitution of the United States and must permanently enjoy.”
“The court ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of each American to be represented by a legal advisor without fear of reprisals,” said Susman Godfrey in a statement. “We applaud the court for declaring the order of the unconstitutional administration. Our company is committed to the rule of law and the protection of our clients’ rights without taking into account their political beliefs or others.”
The last order offers a resounding rebuke to the unprecedented Trump executive orders series aimed at prominent law firms since February. The orders have tried to punish them for representing causes or clients that he opposes, or for an employment lawyer who does not like, such as former special advisor Robert Mueller.
The orders impose several punitive measures, including the suspension of the security authorizations for the company’s lawyers, except the access of their employees to the buildings and government officials, and end the government with the company.
Four law firms, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Wilmerhal and Sosman Godfrey, sued individually to block Trump’s actions, saying that executive orders were unconstitutional and a threat to the legal profession.
In the four demands, the judges, appointed by Republican and democratic presidents, have found Trump orders that are unconstitutional and permanently blocked the application of the issue.
“We kill all lawyers”
In their failures, the judges found Trump’s orders as an attack on the rights of the first and fifth amendment of law firms, as well as a broader assault on the US legal system.
“The cornerstone of the American justice system is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to address unpopular cases, by discouraging,” Judge Richard Leon, who was appointed by former President George Wil. Bushinion
“The founding parents knew this! Consequently, they touch pain to consecrate in the Constitution certain rights that would make the basis of that independence,” he added. “It is not surprising that in almost 250 years since the Constitution was adopted, an executive order of the fundamental rights of challenging theses has not been issued.”
That changed, says the judge, with Trump.
In his ruling in the lawsuit filed by the firm Perkins Coie, Judge Beryll Howell, a designated or former president Barack Obama, also pointed out that no US president had signed up for a law firm with executive orders such as Trump.
But, he said, “on purpose and effect, this action is based on a book of plays as old as Shakespeare, who wrote the phrase:” The first thing we do, we kill all lawyers. “
Defend the rule of law
Despite these setbacks, Trump has achieved successes with other companies.
At least nine major law firms have made agreements with Trump to have an order against them raised or avoid being the goal of one. In return, they have agreed to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in legal work for both causes of them and the president.
However, some legal experts question whether these agreements are legally valid.
Timothy Zick, professor at William’s Law Faculty and Mary, said Trump’s administration does not seem to care if executive orders against law firms are constitutional.
“As we have seen, many companies will capitular. And if the judges invalidate the orders, the administration will simply blame the ‘radical’ judges for interfering with the president’s agenda,” he said in an email.
Even so, judicial decisions recently demonstrate the strength of the case of law firms against executive orders.
“The companies that cut ‘agreements’ surely knew this, but reasoned that more damage would come from fighting the administration than of capitulation,” Zick said.
“A great image question is how law firms will be perceived in the future,” he added. “Those who litigate can benefit from being perceived as defending not only their own interests but also those of the Bar Association and the Rule of Law. Those who fold can be perceived as having failed in those aspects.”