Trump: Order was unconstitutional retaliation, says judge
The fourth US law firm to challenge a punitive executive order issued by President Trump against it has been granted summary judgment.
US District Judge Loren L Alikhan in the District of Columbia held that the order against Houston-headquartered Susman Godrey violated the constitution
She said: “The court concludes that the order constitutes unlawful retaliation against Susman for activities that are protected by the first amendment, including its representation of certain clients, its donations to certain causes, and its expression of its beliefs regarding diversity.”
The order also breached the fifth amendment by not meeting the standards of due process in the way it was imposed without notice or giving the firm a chance to respond to the allegations it made.
It follows judges acting similarly in relation to executive orders issued against three other firms – Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block – although it emerged yesterday that the Department of Justice is to appeal the Perkins Coie decision, the first one that was made.
Meanwhile, nine firms previously struck deals with the Trump administration to either rescind or avoid orders, between them promising to do $940m worth of pro bono work on mutually agreed causes.
Mr Trump had claimed in the order that Susman “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections”; it led Dominion Voting Systems’ successful $787m lawsuit against Fox News over the network’s airing of 2020 election conspiracies.
He asserted too that Susman “funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology” – this was thought to refer to Susman’s donation to GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, which previously sued the Department of Defense.
He also accused the firm of engaging in “unlawful discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race”.
The order sought to limit contracts both the law firm and its clients had with the government and deny it access to government buildings and staff.
Judge Alikhan recorded that around a third of Susman’s active matters took place before federal courts and agencies, and it has nearly 20 clients that either contracted or did business with the federal government.
The judge said it was “clear from the face of the order and the record in this case that the order was issued in response to Susman’s first-amendment-protected activities”.
The “mere fact” that the government has “a greater degree of discretion when it operates as a contractor” did not mean it could act with “retaliatory intent”, she said.
Judge Alikhan ruled that the order deprived the firm of its constitutionally protected liberty and property interests without due 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.”
In a statement, Susman Godfrey said: “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.”
It also thanked the “thousands of lawyers, former judges, law professors, and law students who submitted amicus briefs”.
Leave a Comment