District Court Judge Loren AliKhan has placed a temporary restraining order on much of Donald Trump’s executive order targeting law firms, specifically Susman Godfrey, citing potential unconstitutionality. This marks the fourth time a judge has ruled against Trump’s actions towards law firms, with AliKhan emphasizing the abuse of power in targeting firms based on their legal representation, such as Susman’s involvement in a settlement with Fox News over election misinformation. While other firms settled and agreed to provide free legal work for causes favored by Trump, Susman and others have fought back and won in court.

Attorney Don Verrilli, representing Susman, urged decisive action from the courts to prevent further erosion of constitutional rights. The judge’s decision, though initially valid for 14 days, strongly indicates her belief that Trump’s order likely breaches the first and fifth amendments by coercing lawyers to align with the government. Despite arguments from the Department of Justice invoking past presidential actions on federal contracting, the judge suspended provisions of the order affecting Susman Godfrey’s business relationships and access to federal buildings.

The broader implications of Trump’s order extend beyond the legal realm, intersecting with ongoing challenges to his election falsehoods. While firms like Susman have gained legal victories against the order, Attorney General Pam Bondi has criticized these decisions, asserting federal agencies’ autonomy in choosing their collaborators. The legal battles surrounding Trump’s order highlight the crucial role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional principles and protecting the independence of legal entities.