1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Executive orders against firms threaten rule…

Law Firms

Executive orders against firms threaten rule of law, Susman Godfrey says in suit against Trump administration

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 14, 2025, 12:39 pm CDT

Updated: Susman Godfrey has alleged in a lawsuit filed Friday that President Donald Trump’s campaign of executive orders targeting the law firm and other well-known firms is an unconstitutional threat to the rule of law.

“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,” according to the April 11 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “If a president can with impunity seek to destroy a law firm because of the clients it represents, then the rule of law itself is in grave danger.”

If the executive orders against Susman Godfrey and other firms are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they retaliate against different perceived enemies, the suit says.

“Put simply, this could be any of us,” the suit says.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law are among the publications with coverage.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., granted a temporary restraining order Tuesday to block sections of the executive order denying access to government property and calling for an end to government contracts in which the firm provides services.

“The executive order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm,” AliKhan said during the hearing, according to a report by Reuters. “And, frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would view it as a shocking abuse of power.”

Publications covering the ruling, in addition to Reuters, include Law.com and Law360.

Three other firms that sued over executive orders have also obtained TROs.

Susman Godfrey, a firm with 235 attorneys, describes itself as “the nation’s foremost trial firm” in the suit, Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President. Susman Godfrey is represented in the suit by a legal team at Munger, Tolles & Olson headed by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who was the U.S. solicitor general in the Obama administration and also was a former Jenner & Block partner.

The April 9 executive order targeting Susman Godfrey alleged that the firm “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.” Susman Godfrey is one of the firms that filed a defamation suit against Fox News for false claims that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems were used to help former President Joe Biden win the 2020 election. The case settled for $787.5 million.

The executive order against Susman Godfrey seeks the suspension of security clearances issued to any of the firm’s lawyers; restricts access to government buildings for firm employees; bans the government from providing resources to Susman Godfrey, including compartmentalized information facilities; bans government hiring of Susman Godfrey employees; and calls for termination of government contracts for which Susman Godfrey has been hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Trump’s executive order “effectively seeks to create a new condition of government contracting—that contractors not work with Susman Godfrey,” the suit says.

That is an unconstitutional condition that interferes with a First Amendment right to associate and a due process right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, according to the suit, which also cites other alleged constitutional violations.

Susman Godfrey is the fourth firm to sue over executive orders. The others are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie.

Firms that have reached agreements with Trump to avoid executive orders are Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

See also:

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

Updated April 16 at 8:45 a.m. to include information on the temporary restraining order.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘There is no question that we will fight,’…

Law Firms

‘There is no question that we will fight,’ says latest law firm targeted in Trump executive order

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 10:26 am CDT

The latest law firm targeted by the Trump administration, Susman Godfrey, won’t be the last, President Donald Trump said Wednesday.

Trump said the administration had signed deals with many targeted firms, and, “We have another five to go,” Bloomberg Law reports.

Other publications with coverage include Law.com and Reuters.

Susman plans to fight the executive order signed by Trump on Wednesday. It is the sixth firm targeted by Trump in punitive orders because of their representation of clients and causes adverse to Trump.

One of the targeted firms—Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison—is no longer subject to an order because of a deal that it reached with Trump that included an agreement to provide $40 million in pro bono services to mutually supported pro bono projects.

Three other firms also reached deals with Trump to avoid future executive orders targeting them.

Susman vowed to fight in a statement published on its website.

“Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it,” the statement said. “This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.”

The Susman order seeks the suspension of security clearances issued to any of the firm’s lawyers; restricts access to government buildings for firm employees; bans the government from providing resources to Susman, including compartmentalized information facilities; bans government hiring of Susman employees; and calls for termination of government contracts for which Susman has been hired to provide services, including contracts retained by its clients.

Susman was one of the firms that filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News for false claims that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems were used to help former President Joe Biden win the 2020 election. The case settled for $787.5 million.

The executive order alleged that Susman “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.”

According to Bloomberg Law, “Susman is home to some of the country’s top trial lawyers and is well-known for taking major contingency fee cases.” It has profits of nearly $7 million per partner in fiscal year 2023.

Executive orders that targeted Paul Weiss and three other firms included provisions similar to the Susman executive order. A memo targeting Covington & Burling was more limited.

In addition to Paul Weiss, the firms that reached deals with Trump are Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Each of those three firms agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono services to mutually agreeable pro bono projects.

Firms that sued over the executive orders are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie. They have all obtained temporary restraining orders blocking many sections of the executive orders.

See also:

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Jenner & Block’s rehiring of lead Mueller…

Law Firms

Jenner & Block’s rehiring of lead Mueller prosecutor cited in executive order targeting firm

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 26, 2025, 9:16 am CDT

Jenner & Block has become the fourth BigLaw firm targeted by President Donald Trump in a punitive executive order.

The March 25 order calls for suspension of security clearances held by people at Jenner & Block, limits access to government buildings by Jenner & Block employees, seeks termination of its clients’ government contracts, and bars the federal government from hiring Jenner & Block employees absent a waiver.

Jenner & Block “is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals, condoned partisan ‘lawfare’ and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States,” the order declares.

The order criticizes the firm’s diversity practices, its representation in cases involving transgender and immigration issues, and its rehiring of the lead prosecutor working with former special counsel Robert Mueller.

A Jenner & Block spokesperson provided this statement to the ABA Journal: “Jenner & Block has had a long history representing clients, paid and pro bono, in their most difficult matters since 1914. Today, we have been named in an executive order similar to one which has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal court. We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients’ interests with the dedication, integrity and expertise that has defined our firm for more than 100 years and will pursue all appropriate remedies.”

Publications with coverage of the order include Law.com (here and here) and Reuters.

The order criticizes Jenner & Block’s April 2020 rehiring of Andrew Weissmann. He is the former lead prosecutor for what the order calls the “entirely unjustified” investigation by Mueller, who examined coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

Weissmann left Jenner & Block in 2021 and is currently listed as a professor at the New York University School of Law.

Mueller’s investigation found that Trump did not collude with the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 election and found insufficient evidence to establish that Trump obstructed the special counsel probe.

The order also said Jenner & Block “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends.” The order appeared to criticize the firm’s involvement in lawsuits against the administration seeking to restore funding for gender-affirming medical care and seeking to allow immigrants to remain in the United States while asylum claims are pending.

Jenner & Block is also accused in the order of using race-based targets in a way that discriminates against its employees.

Three other firms previously targeted in Trump’s executive orders are Covington & Burling; Perkins Coie; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

Perkins Coie responded with a suit, while Paul Weiss reached an agreement with Trump that led to lifting of the order. The agreement requires Paul Weiss to dedicate $40 million in pro bono legal services to support Trump administration initiatives, including projects that include veterans assistance, fairness in the justice system and a presidential task force on antisemitism.

A federal judge who entered a temporary restraining order in the Perkins Coie challenge said the firm was likely to succeed on its First Amendment and due process claims.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The first case involving the second Trump administration has come to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the court has not gotten involved at this stage in the litigation, the case involves an issue of enormous significance: May a president fire anyone who works in the executive branch of government even when there is a statute limiting firing? More generally, will the court continue to allow the existence of “independent regulatory agencies” with some degree of independence from a president?

The facts of this case

The case, Bessent v. Dellinger, involves Hampton Dellinger, who is the head of the Office of Special Counsel. This is an independent agency responsible for safeguarding whistleblowers and enforcing ethics laws. Dellinger was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2024 to a five-year term and confirmed by the Senate under a law that says that the Special Counsel “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

On Feb. 7, Dellinger was fired in a one sentence email that gave no reasons. In none of its filings in court, has the government tried to claim that there was cause for removing him.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, following Supreme Court precedent, issued a temporary restraining order against the removal. On Feb. 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, denied a request to stay the temporary restraining order. The majority explained that TROs are generally not reviewable on appeal. If the district court, on the expiration of the TRO, issues a preliminary injunction, that would be subject to appeal.

The next day, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to lift the TRO. On Feb. 21, the Supreme Court, in a short order, declined to hear the matter at this point, with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.

Independent regulatory agencies and the removal power

Independent regulatory agencies have a long history. In 1887, Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates. Over time, a myriad of important agencies were created, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board and many more.

As with cabinet officers, commissioners for these agencies are nominated by the president with a requirement of Senate confirmation. But unlike cabinet positions, members of the agencies have protection from removal. The statutes creating the agencies provide that the commissioners serve for a set term and can be removed only for cause, usually defined as permitting firing by the president “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

In 1935, in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that prevented removal of commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission unless there was just cause for firing. The court stressed the importance of Congress being able to shield federal regulatory agencies from direct presidential control. The court declared: “The authority of Congress, in creating quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies, to require them to act in discharge of their duties independently of executive control cannot well be doubted; and that authority includes, as an appropriate incident, power to fix the period during which they shall continue in office, and to forbid their removal except for cause in the meantime.”

In Wiener v. United States, in 1958, the high court went further and held that even without a statutory limit on removal, the president could not remove executive officials where independence from the president is desirable. Wiener involved the president’s firing a member of the War Claims Commission. Unlike the Federal Trade Commission Act in Humphrey’s Executor, the statute creating the War Claims Commission did not expressly limit the president’s removal power.

However, the court concluded that the functional need for independence of the War Claims Commission limited the president’s removal power. The court explained that Congress’ intent was for the War Claims Commission to award claims based on merit rather than on political influence. The court said that there was a “sharp differentiation” between “those who are part of the executive establishment and those whose tasks require absolute freedom from executive interference.”

In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Congress can provide protection from removal where independence from the president is desirable. In Morrison v. Olson, in 1988, the court upheld the constitutionality of a federal law which created an independent counsel to investigate wrongdoing by high level executive branch officials and allowed firing only for cause. In a 7-1 decision, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, upheld this limit and stressed that the independent counsel, who exists to investigate and prosecute alleged wrongdoing by those in the executive branch of government, ideally should be independent of the president.

In 2020, the Supreme Court clarified these principles and even spoke of the office held by Dellinger. In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the court, 5-4, held that Congress could not limit the removal of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The court distinguished Humphrey’s Executor. It said that the Congress cannot limit removal where an agency is directed by a single person, as was the case for the CFPB. But the court reaffirmed that Congress can limit removal where it is a multi-member commission as with the Federal Trade Commission in Humphrey’s Executor.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, contrasted the Office of Special Counsel, which Dellinger heads, to the CFPB and said: “In any event, the Office of Special Counsel exercises only limited jurisdiction to enforce certain rules governing federal government employers and employees. It does not bind private parties at all or wield regulatory authority comparable to the CFPB.”

The Trump administration position and the opposition

The Trump administration is arguing that cases such as Humphrey’s Executor and Morrison v. Olson should be overruled and that Congress never can limit the firing of anyone who works in the executive branch of government. In a letter, dated Feb. 12, Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris wrote to Sen. Richard Durbin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the Department of Justice has concluded that limits on removal are unconstitutional, that Humphrey’s Executor is wrong, and that it will not abide by statutes limiting firing.

On Feb. 18, the Trump administration issued an executive order, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies, which declared that all federal agencies are under control of the president. It said that the president can fire those within the agency without needing to comply with statutory limits on removal and that all within the agencies must adhere to the president’s policies.

President Trump has fired many individuals who have statutory protection from removal such as Dellinger, a commissioner on the National Labor Relations Board, members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the head of the Federal Election Commission.

The Trump administration relies on what is referred to as the unitary executive theory. This is the view that the Constitution vests the entire executive power in the president who then is in charge of the entire executive branch of government. Any limit on presidential control, such as restrictions on removal, are unconstitutional.

Critics argue that the unitary executive theory has no historical support. The framers of the Constitution were deeply distrustful of executive authority. Those who oppose the unitary executive theory say that it ignores that federal powers are both separate and interdependent and the importance of checks and balances within the federal government.

In addition, critics argue, there are times when it is very desirable to have protection for those who are formally in the executive branch of government. For example, it is widely thought that the Federal Reserve Board, which has enormous influence over the economy, should not be directly answerable to the president. And it makes sense that the person who is handling whistleblower complaints against the government should have protection from removal.

The Supreme Court

Although the Supreme Court did not hear the Trump administration’s appeal in the Dellinger case at this time because of its procedural posture, the issue surely will come back to the court, in this or another case, soon. The court will then have to decide whether to overrule long-standing precedents and give the president powers that could extend to the ability to fire all government officials and employees.

On the one hand, there now may be a majority on the court disposed toward accepting the unitary executive theory. In Trump v. United States, the court, in a majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, stated “The President occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme as the only person who alone composes a branch of government.” The court may well say that the distinction between single-member and multi-member heads of agencies that it drew in Seila Law is arbitrary.

On the other hand, for 90 years, the law has been that there can be independent agencies and there can be limits on presidential removal. It would be a dramatic expansion of presidential power for the court to embrace the unitary executive theory.

Perhaps the court will take an intermediate position, giving the president authority to remove the heads of agencies, but not finding civil service protection for federal employees unconstitutional.

The only sure thing is that one of the first tests of the Trump administration’s expansive assertion of executive power will involve whether Congress can impose limits on the president’s removal power. If the court embraces the unitary executive theory, the implications will be enormous.

---

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. He is an expert in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He’s also the author of many books, including No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States and A Court Divided: October Term 2023 (2024).

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

A federal judge has hit pause on an effort by the Trump administration to ban federal support for transgender medical care.

On Friday afternoon, Joe Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Lauren King, sitting in Seattle, issued a temporary restraining order in favor of three states and three doctors who sued the government on Feb. 7.

The court barred a litany of named federal defendants from “enforcing or implementing” two major sections of a recent anti-transgender executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

Under the terms of Executive Order 14187, which is fashioned as an effort to protect “Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” the 45th and 47th president intends to cut off all federal funding for institutions that offer pediatric gender transition services or provide any kind of gender-affirming care for people under the age of 19.

A transgender prison inmate has filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump’s administration over the constitutionality of the executive order he signed his first day in office directing the government to recognize only two sexes when housing federal prisoners, while also barring their access to gender-affirming medical care. It marks the first official challenge of Trump’s gender order, which the suit blasts as an “imminent threat” to transgender rights.

“Under the Fifth Amendment, sex classifications are subject to heightened scrutiny and are presumptively unconstitutional,” the complaint for the inmate, who is identified by the pseudonym Maria Moe, reads. “On January 23, 2025, Marie Moe’s publicly accessible BOP classification of her sex was ‘female.’ On January 25, that classification indicated ‘male.””

Four years ago, Damien Riehl, like many others, was quite bullish about the future of autonomous vehicles. The potential of the technology was obvious: No more worrying about someone trying to text and drive, no more need for drunken driving checkpoints, and no more danger of falling asleep at the wheel.

In other words, remove human error, negligence or recklessness from the equation, and cars would cease being an instrument of death and dismemberment. Plus, people could get from point A to point B and not have to look for parking because they could just send their cars home until they were ready to be picked up. Who couldn’t get behind that?

Since then, there hasn’t been much progress when it comes to driverless cars. According to CNBC, in October, Google’s driverless car program, Waymo, announced that it would roll out a taxi service in Los Angeles, although it wasn’t clear when or whether it would happen.

Most major car manufacturers have sunk hundreds of billions into developing and testing driverless cars; yet the finish line seems to be nowhere in sight. So what happened?

Riehl, currently the vice president of workflow and analytics content at Fastcase, joins the ABA Journal’s Victor Li to talk about why driverless cars haven’t caught on and what the future might hold for autonomous vehicles.

Riehl is a member of the Minnesota governor’s Council on Connected and Automated Vehicles, where he worked on updating the state’s rules, laws and policies relating to driverless cars.

See also:

ABAJournal.com: “Are driverless car searches constitutional?”