Fact Check: "Trump's executive order against Susman Godfrey deemed 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 decision marked the fourth time a federal judge has permanently blocked one of Trump's executive orders aimed at punishing elite law firms for their legal representation of clients or causes opposed by the president (NPR, New York Times, AP News). In her ruling, Judge AliKhan stated that the executive order "is unconstitutional from beginning to end" and highlighted that every court that has reviewed these orders found "grave constitutional violations" (NPR, Reuters).
The executive order imposed several punitive measures against Susman Godfrey, including suspending security clearances for its attorneys and barring employees' access to government buildings, which were seen as tactics to intimidate the firm for representing clients that Trump opposed (New York Times, Washington Post). 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 (AP News, Reuters).
Analysis
The ruling by Judge AliKhan is significant not only for its direct implications for Susman Godfrey but also for the broader context of Trump's executive orders against law firms. The consistent outcomes from multiple judges, appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, indicate a strong judicial consensus against the legality of Trump's actions (New York Times, AP News). This pattern suggests that the courts view these executive orders as not just politically motivated but as direct threats to the independence of the legal profession and the constitutional rights of attorneys.
The credibility of the sources reporting on this ruling is high, as they include established news organizations such as NPR, The New York Times, and the Associated Press, all of which have a history of reliable reporting. The legal analysis provided by these outlets aligns with the judicial opinions expressed in the rulings, reinforcing the assertion that the executive orders were unconstitutional (NPR, New York Times, Washington Post).
Critically, the ruling also reflects a broader concern regarding the implications of executive power and its potential to undermine the legal system. Judge AliKhan's comments about the order threatening the independence of the bar highlight the judiciary's role as a check on executive overreach (AP News, Reuters).
Conclusion
The claim that Trump's executive order against Susman Godfrey was deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge is True. The ruling by Judge Loren AliKhan not only confirms the unconstitutionality of the specific order but also aligns with a broader judicial trend rejecting similar executive actions by Trump. The consistent legal challenges and outcomes underscore the importance of maintaining the independence of the legal profession and the constitutional rights of those it serves.
