Fact Check: Trump's Executive Order Against Law Firms Declared Unconstitutional by Federal Judge
What We Know
On June 27, 2025, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that President Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional. This ruling marks the fourth consecutive time a federal judge has blocked Trump's attempts to penalize law firms for representing clients or causes he opposes (NPR, Washington Post). Judge AliKhan stated that the executive order violated the First and Fifth Amendments, emphasizing that "every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations" (New York Times, Reuters). The ruling was celebrated by Susman Godfrey as a victory for the rule of law and the right to legal representation without fear of retaliation.
The executive orders issued by Trump aimed to impose punitive measures on law firms, including suspending security clearances for their attorneys and terminating government contracts (NPR). The orders were seen as retaliatory actions against firms that had taken on cases unfavorable to Trump or employed attorneys he disliked, such as Robert Mueller (Washington Post).
Analysis
The evidence supporting the claim that Trump's executive order was declared unconstitutional is robust and comes from multiple credible sources. The rulings by Judge AliKhan and her predecessors were based on constitutional grounds, specifically the violation of free speech and due process rights (Washington Post, Democracy Docket). The judges involved in these cases were appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, which adds to the credibility of the rulings by demonstrating a non-partisan judicial consensus on the matter.
Critically, the judges have consistently characterized Trump's actions as unprecedented and a direct attack on the independence of the legal profession. For instance, Judge Richard Leon noted that Trump's executive orders represented a significant departure from historical norms, stating that no previous president had targeted law firms in such a manner (NPR). This historical context underscores the severity of the constitutional violations identified by the courts.
While the Trump administration has defended these executive orders, arguing that they were not intended as punitive measures, the courts have found no merit in these claims. The administration's lack of a coherent legal justification further undermines its position (Washington Post, Reuters).
Conclusion
The claim that Trump's executive order against law firms was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge is True. The consistent rulings against Trump's orders by multiple judges highlight significant constitutional violations, reinforcing the principle that legal representation should not be subject to political retaliation. The unanimous judicial opposition to these executive orders reflects a strong commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of legal professionals.
