Search Articles
WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge Thursday saw little basis for President Donald Trump’s assertion that law firm Susman Godfrey had discriminatory hiring practices as justification for his executive order throttling the firm.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan previously blocked Trump’s executive order, calling it a “shocking abuse of power” and “immensely oppressive,” freezing the administration’s directions for agency heads to review the firm’s security clearances, government contracts for its clients and even access to federal buildings.
Trump targeted the firm in an April 9 executive order, arguing that Susman Godfrey had degraded the quality of elections, undermined the effectiveness of the military and engaged in unlawful discrimination. He specifically pointed to the firm’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
Donald Verrilli, of Munger Tolles and representing Susman Godfrey, argued that the president’s assertions were unfounded and clearly punished the firm for its progressive viewpoint.
“This is as serious as it gets,” Verrilli said. “This is a serious abuse of executive power and I urge the court, as promptly as the court can easily do so, issue a judgment definitively and permanently enjoining it.”
Verrilli noted that Trump’s point that the firm “undermined” the military was based on a charitable donation to the LGBTQ legal advocacy group GLAD Law— which is involved in an ongoing challenge to Trump’s ban on transgender service members — and is an example of the sort of intended intimidation.
“The specific point of these orders is to prevent courts from hearing the best arguments from the best lawyers challenging executive actions,” Verrilli said. “It’s to silence the challenges to the myth the 2020 election was rigged, really to silence any argument that the president finds threatening.”
Further, the assertion that Susman Godfrey engaged in racial discrimination only cited the firm’s scholarship program for applicants from underrepresented groups at the firm, Verrilli said, which was lawful.
Justice Department attorney Richard Lawson — who has been tasked with defending each of Trump’s executive orders in Washington — struggled to provide justification for the racial discrimination arguments.
He pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which struck down raced-based affirmative action programs as a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Verrilli contested that argument, noting that Chief Justice John Roberts said in the majority opinion that ensuring a diverse student body was a “commendable goal” while striking down the use of race as a factor in the admissions process.
AliKhan, a Joe Biden appointee, seemed unconvinced by Lawson’s arguments. She pressed Lawson on whether he agreed that the president’s only example of race discrimination at Susman Godfrey was a lawful program.
He resisted answering, asserting that the program was problematic and that the president should have discretion to stop working with certain entities he has concerns about.
Lawson urged AliKhan to leave the order in place until agency heads issue guidance so the court’s order could address any specific harms suffered by the firm rather than enjoining the order prematurely.
AliKhan asked whether Trump’s directive to limit access to government buildings would include federal courthouses like the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington.
Lawson said he would have to see the guidance first, but suggested that it was possible.
In his executive order, Trump accused the firm of “undermining American interests” by weaponizing the legal system and degrading “the quality of American elections.”
While Trump did not explain the claims, Susman argued in its lawsuit that they are clear allusions to the firm’s representation of Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation case against Fox News — where the firm secured a $787 million settlement over false claims of election fraud.
The firm also represented clients in similar defamation cases against Trump allies, like Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell, Patrick Byrne and One America News Network.
Trump has targeted four law firms with near identical executive orders — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner Block and Susman Godfrey — all of which federal judges in Washington have temporarily or permanently enjoined.
Trump also first targeted Covington Burling with a presidential memorandum for certain attorneys’ work on former special counsel Jack Smith’s cases against the president.
He has also made deals with nine firms for $1 billion in free legal services for initiatives backed by the administration — Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Willkie Farr, Latham Watkins, Milbank, Cadwalader, Kirkland Ellis and Simpson Thacher.
They each determined the orders retaliated against the firms’ representation of clients and causes he disfavored.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell blocked Trump’s order regarding Perkins Coie on Friday, finding Trump’s actions was a clear attack on the legal profession and a step toward totalitarianism.
AliKhan indicated she would rule on Susman Godfrey’s case in the coming weeks.
Follow @Ryan_KnappySubscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.