It’s
not
just
hyperbole.
From
jump,
commentators
called
President
Donald
Trump’s
efforts
to
target
Biglaw
firms
with
Executive
Orders
unconstitutional.
After
all,
they
were
designed
to
extract
a
financial
penalty
for
supporting
causes
or
cases
that
angered
the
president
in
a
near-textbook
case
of
retaliation.
And,
thus
far,
every
firm
that
had
the
actual
courage
to
challenge
these
EOs
in
court
has
successfully
challenged
the
orders
as
unconstitutional.
Susman
Godfrey
joined
Perkins
Coie,
Jenner
&
Block,
and
WilmerHale
as
the
latest
firm
to
notch
a
victory
against
Trump.
On
Friday
U.S.
District
Judge
Loren
AliKhan
issued
a
decision,
available
below,
granting
Susman’s
motion
for
summary
judgment,
writing,
“The
order
was
one
in
a
series
attacking
firms
that
had
taken
positions
with
which
President
Trump
disagreed.
In
the
ensuing
months,
every
court
to
have
considered
a
challenge
to
one
of
these
orders
has
found
grave
constitutional
violations
and
permanently
enjoined
enforcement
of
the
order
in
full.”
AliKhan
found
the
EO
was
a
violation
of
the
First
Amendment,
writing
“As
the
court
has
laid
out,
the
activities
that
the
Order
contemplates—which
include
litigation
concerning
the
2020
election,
a
donation
to
GLAD
law,
an
academic
prize
that
is
not
covered
by
Title
VII,
and
general
statements
about
diversity
on
Susman’s
website—are
all
plainly
protected
by
the
First
Amendment.
Defendants
cannot
target
Susman
for
those
activities
simply
because
it
does
not
like
them.”
The
judge
also
found
the
EO
violated
the
firm’s
due
process
rights,
because
it
“interferes
with
the
right
of
the
firm
and
its
attorneys
to
pursue
their
chosen
profession;
harms
the
firm’s
reputation;
and
deprives
the
firm
of
its
protected
property
interest
in
contracts
with
its
clients.”
“The
aforementioned
liberty
and
property
interests
were
all
taken
without
any
process.
The
Constitution
demands
more;
specifically,
that
Susman
has
the
‘right
to
know
the
factual
basis
for
the
action’
and
have
‘the
opportunity
to
rebut’
it.
Susman
was
afforded
neither.
The
firm
was
not
given
prior
notice
of
the
Order,
learned
of
it
only
when
it
was
announced
on
live
television,
and
was
not
provided
the
opportunity
to
clear
its
name.”
[Internal
citations
omitted.]
A
firm
spokesperson
had
the
following
comment,
“The
Court’s
ruling
is
a
resounding
victory
for
the
rule
of
law
and
the
right
of
every
American
to
be
represented
by
legal
counsel
without
fear
of
retaliation.
We
applaud
the
Court
for
declaring
the
administration’s
order
unconstitutional.
Our
firm
is
committed
to
the
rule
of
law
and
to
protecting
the
rights
of
our
clients
without
regard
to
their
political
or
other
beliefs.
Susman
Godfrey’s
lawyers
and
staff
live
these
values
every
day.
We
are
also
deeply
appreciative
of
those
who
supported
us
in
this
lawsuit,
including
our
superb
legal
team
at
Munger,
Tolles
&
Olson
and
the
thousands
of
lawyers,
former
judges,
law
professors,
and
law
students
who
submitted
amicus
briefs.”
The
legal
arguments
against
the
EOs
have
been
pretty
slam
dunk…
which
is
certainly
fanning
some
of
the
frustration
directed
at
the
nine
firms
that
capitulated
to
Trump.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].