Fourth Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s ‘Law Firm Intimidation Policy’ as Unconstitutional Assault on Free Speech, Association, and Due Process

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a resounding rebuke of executive overreach, a fourth federal judge has struck down a Trump administration executive order aimed at punishing a law firm for the clients it represents and the causes it supports.

The ruling in Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President blocks enforcement of an executive order targeting Susman Godfrey LLP over the firm’s representation of Dominion Voting Systems and state officials involved in 2020 election litigation, donating to a group which advocates for equal treatment of LGBTQ service members, and stating on its website that “diversity is one of the firm’s core values.” The court ruled that representing unpopular clients, corporate political speech (including donations), and statements valuing diversity are all forms of constitutionally protected expression under the First Amendment. The court also found that the executive order violated other constitutional protections, including the rights to petition the government, association, due process, and counsel, while also undermining the separation of powers.

“If the government can blacklist a law firm for representing an unpopular client or expressing an unpopular idea, then no one’s rights are safe—not journalists, not whistleblowers, not ordinary Americans,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “This is not just an abuse of power—it’s a direct assault on the Constitution. The right to dissent, to associate freely, and to challenge government in court is what keeps tyranny in check.”

As part of a broader campaign to intimidate and silence legal dissent, President Trump issued executive orders instructing federal agencies to suspend security clearances, terminate contracts, cease providing goods and services, restrict access to federal buildings, and refrain from hiring employees of disfavored law firms. According to former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, the intent was to “put those law firms out of business.” The American Bar Association denounced the administration’s efforts “to severely damage and intimidate firms and lawyers to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like.”

Pushing back against what the ABA calls Trump’s “Law Firm Intimidation Policy,” The Rutherford Institute joined a broad coalition of civil liberties organizations—including the ACLU, ACLU of D.C., Cato Institute, Center for Individual Rights, Electronic Frontier Foundation, FIRE, the Institute for Justice, the Knight First Amendment Institute, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Society for the Rule of Law—in filing amicus briefs challenging the orders on behalf of four law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. The coalition argued that these executive orders violate the separation of powers and amount to an unconstitutional assault on free speech, legal advocacy, and due process. To date, four federal judges have independently ruled these executive orders unconstitutional.

Cecillia D. Wang, Ben Wizner, Brian Hauss, and Arthur B. Spitzer at ACLU advanced the arguments in the amicus briefs.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Case History

April 03, 2025 • Legal Coalition Challenges President Trump’s Weaponization of Executive Orders to Chill Speech, Suppress Dissent, and Erode Checks and Balances

April 15, 2025 • Legal Coalition Challenges Trump’s Use of Executive Orders to Retaliate Against More Law Firms & Erode Checks and Balance?

May 05, 2025 • Court Warns of ‘Totalitarian’ Overreach, Declares Trump’s Blacklisting of Law Firm Illegal as Civil Liberties Groups Expand Legal Challenge

June 05, 2025 • Courts Reject Trump’s Retaliatory War on Law Firms, Free Speech, and Separation of Powers—Judges Cry Foul Over Authoritarian Overreach

Amicus Briefs:

• Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President
• Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
• WilmerHale LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
• Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court Opinions:

• Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President
• Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
• WilmerHale LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
• Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice

Article posted with permission from John Whitehead

The post Fourth Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s ‘Law Firm Intimidation Policy’ as Unconstitutional Assault on Free Speech, Association, and Due Process appeared first on The Washington Standard.