Pushing Back on Trump’s Direct Attack on Legal Firms
If you have not been aware, Trump has been executing or abusing Executive Orders taking Lawyering Firms to task.
Settlements: Trump reaches deals with 5 law firms, allowing them to avoid prospect of punishing executive orders | AP News
— President Donald Trump announced deals Friday with five law firms that will allow them to avoid the prospect of punishing executive orders and require them to together provide hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of free legal services for causes his administration says it supports.
The resolutions reflect the Republican president’s continued success in bending prominent law firms to his will as they seek to cut deals with his administration to avoid being targeted by White House sanctions like the ones confronting others in the legal community.
The White House said that the firms of Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; and Latham & Watkins LLP would each provide $125 million in free legal work for causes including veterans affairs and combatting anti-Semitism. As part of the agreement, the administration agreed to withdraw letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission demanding information about whether the firms were engaged in discriminatory hiring practices.
In a separate deal also announced Friday, Trump said that the firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft would agree to dedicate $100 million in pro bono services. The agreements also required the firms to disavow any “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion considerations in their hiring and to agree to accept clients regardless without regard to political beliefs.
Pushing Back: Susman Godfrey Hits Back at Trump Administration Over Executive Order Targeting the Firm, Above the Law
Pretty much from the moment Susman Godfrey was targeted by Donald Trump with an Executive Order designed to extract a financial penalty for not swearing fealty to Trump, the firm vowed to fight — for both themselves and for the rule of law. And fight they have. Yesterday the firm became the fourth in Biglaw to file a complaint against the administration over these EOs. (Complaint available in full below.)
Susman Godfrey is represented by former Solicitor General Don Verrilli, now of Munger, Tolles & Olson, and seeks to enjoin the enforcement of the EO and have it declared unconstitutional. The complaint reads, “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; to the contrary, the specific provisions and overall design of our constitution were adopted in large measure to ensure that presidents cannot exercise arbitrary, absolute power in the way that the president seeks to do in these executive orders.”
The filing alleges a cornucopia of violations of the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the constitution. And it notes, “If President Trump’s executive orders are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they seek to retaliate against a different set of perceived foes. What for two centuries has been beyond the pale will become the new normal.”
A firm spokesperson provided the following statement on the litigation, “The executive order targeting Susman Godfrey is unconstitutional and retaliatory. No administration should be allowed to punish lawyers for simply doing their jobs, protecting Americans and their constitutional right to the legal process. But this goes far beyond law firms and lawyers. Today it is our firm under attack, but tomorrow it could be any of us. As officers of the court, we are duty-bound to take on this fight against the illegal executive order.”
The other firms that have taken to the judicial system in the face of these EOs (Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale) have been met with early court victories. Plus, they’ve been spared the infamy of being on the growing list of Biglaw firms that have bent a knee to Trump and allowed him to amass an ~$1 billion war chest of pro bono payola that Trump believes can be used for legal causes of his choosing, even beyond his presidency.
Some of the verbiage from the Complaint which the rest can be found at the link. These two points get to the meat of the issue as declared by Susman Godfrey in their suit(?) against Trump and the government’s demands for legal servitude in return for withdrawing Trump’s complaint.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
- In America we have, in the words of John Adams, a government of laws and not men. President Trump’s campaign of Executive Orders against law firms and others, including the Executive Order he signed on April 9, 2025 against Susman Godfrey, is a grave threat to this foundational premise of our Republic. 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; to the contrary, the specific provisions and overall design of our Constitution were adopted in large measure to ensure that presidents cannot exercise arbitrary, absolute power in the way that the President seeks to do in these Executive Orders.
- Unless the Judiciary acts with resolve—now—to repudiate this blatantly unconstitutional Executive Order and the others like it, a dangerous and perhaps irreversible precedent will be set. Whatever opinions one may hold about President Trump, or about Susman Godfrey’s litigation on behalf of its clients, someday a different president with an entirely different set of policy priorities and personal grievances will sit behind the Resolute Desk. That future president may genuinely believe that an entirely different set of organizations or people have “engage[d] in activities detrimental to critical American interests,” to quote the accusation President Trump has leveled at Susman Godfrey. If President Trump’s Executive Orders are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they seek to retaliate against a different set of perceived foes. What for two centuries has been beyond the pale will become the new normal.
Props to Chicago firm, Jenner & Block for doing the right thing!
@Jack,
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/about-those-law-firm-deals
Yeah, well it really is extortion if one wants a legal term. Of course, so what? Trump is immune, right?
@Jack,
So says the Roberts court. And as you know, the Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means.
Unless Andy Jackson is president.
Or Trump.
As someone who practiced law for 45 years, I can not begin to express my disgust with the lawyers who gave up every principle of the rule of law for filthy lucre. Indeed the Afghan army showed more principle when it switched sides in return for Taliban money. Then we have the Mad King thumbing his nose at SCOTUS about bringing back the wrongfully deported Maryland man. Even Charlie Sykes has figured it out that we are now living in a police state beholden only to the Mad King and that the rule of law –which IMHO is the only thing that elevated America to greatness–is kaput.
Mr. Nilles:
Is it Terry or Terrance you wish to be called?
I am going to guess we are discussing prepaid/free legal representation to get out of being sued or penalized? Sussman called it “wield the might of the Executive Branch in retaliation against organizations and people that he dislikes.” How quick they run for cover. It is something, the man on the street can not pull off.
You have to wonder what Chief Justice Roberts is thinking. He fosters this behavior with hardly a word said.
It is Terrance on my birth certificate which with Real ID also appears on my drivers license and passport. Nobody has ever called me Terrance except my mother and then only when she was extremely upset with something I had done. Before real ID my drivers license was Terry and my bank accounts, credit cards etc are still all Terry. I was admitted to the State Bar of Wisconsin as Terry in 1977 but around 2010, they started listing me as Terrance.
Substantively, I do wonder about the enforceability of the large law firms agreements to provide hundred of millions of dollars in free legal services at Mad King Donald’s request in exchange for being released from executive orders designed to punish the firms, but the purpose was always just to cow the opposition to the Mad King. Just like the attacks on universities which is a twofer–reduces another voice of opposition and makes the MAGA base happy by harming higher education.
As far as Roberts goes he has turned out to be the worst chief justice in history–and may go down as the last. Certainly, his making up presidential immunity out of whole constitutional cloth is arguably worse than Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson and Korematsu and although Dredd Scott helped precipitate the Civil War, the other decisions although awful did not portend the end of democracy. In fairness to Roberts, he is not the sharpest tool in the shed who really only wanted to help business and the Catholic Church and got caught up with Alito and Thomas dominating Trump’s appointment of mediocre talents like Kavanaugh and Barrett.
Terry:
Terry it is then. Terrance makes it sound like you graduated from Harvvvardd or something similar. It was worth asking. My apologies if you are a part of the Harvard crowd. Jesuits and the Christian Bros taught this Baptist.
Put another paragraph (other than the name game) and related to the latter two paragraphs and I would put it up. That is up to you though.
Good to read your words.
@Terry. Roberts has been an advocate of the ‘unitary executive” since he worked in the Reagan White House.
@Jack,
So on a scale of one to ten, where one is “no way” and ten is metaphysical certitude, how do you rank the chances that Roberts will stand up to Trump on the Garcia deportation?
Jack:
I saw the Reagan reference too.
@Joel: 2
@Jack,
Thanks. Sorry to see that.
@Joel:
Sorry to write it. The Republican Congress, not just the Court, has much to answer for in empowering Trump.