By Mike Scarcella and David Thomas (Reuters) -U.S. law firm Susman Godfrey asked a judge in Washington on Thursday to permanently bar President Donald Trump’s executive order against it, calling the measure an act of retaliation that trampled its rights under the U.S. Constitution. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan sharply questioned a Justice Department lawyer […]
Politics
Judge grills Trump administration over order against law firm Susman Godfrey
Audio By Carbonatix
By Mike Scarcella and David Thomas
(Reuters) -U.S. law firm Susman Godfrey asked a judge in Washington on Thursday to permanently bar President Donald Trump’s executive order against it, calling the measure an act of retaliation that trampled its rights under the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan sharply questioned a Justice Department lawyer representing Trump’s administration, repeatedly asking how it could justify restricting the firm’s access to government officials and contracting work without evidence of wrongdoing.
“I’m not trying to browbeat you here, I’m just trying to figure out where the lines are” in the administration’s arguments, AliKhan said.
The hearing marked the latest court clash over the Republican president’s orders targeting major law firms for their connections to his political adversaries or cases they have taken.
Trump has been losing the legal battle so far, after judges put his orders against four firms on hold and struck down one of them entirely on May 2.
Susman Godfrey’s lawsuit said Trump’s order was in retaliation for its defense of the integrity of the 2020 presidential election that Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
The firm represents election technology supplier Dominion Voting Systems in cases that challenged false claims the election was stolen from Trump through widespread voting fraud.
“The whole point of the Susman Godfrey executive order and those like it is to intimidate law firms into abandoning advocacy on behalf of their clients,” the firm’s lawyer Donald Verrilli told AliKhan at the hearing.
“That is unconstitutional, full stop,” Verrilli said.
Houston-based Susman Godfrey sued the administration last month, asserting Trump’s executive order violated constitutional protections for free speech and due process.
Trump issued orders against Susman and three other firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — that suspended their lawyers’ security clearances, restricted their access to government officials and sought to cancel federal contracts held by their clients.
OTHER TRUMP ORDERS OVERTURNED
AliKhan grilled a lawyer for the Justice Department, Richard Lawson, on several aspects of Trump’s order, including its assertion that Susman Godfrey worked to degrade U.S. elections and that it engaged in unlawful racial discrimination.
Lawson said the executive order was consistent with the scope of “executive discretion” and did not strip the firm of any inherent rights.
AliKhan said she would issue a ruling at a later date.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell overturned Trump’s order against Perkins Coie on Friday, calling it an attack on foundational principles of American jurisprudence and the role lawyers play in ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice.
Lawson after the hearing declined to comment on whether the administration would appeal Howell’s ruling.
Nine prominent law firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis, have settled with the White House to avoid similar actions against them by the administration.
Those firms cumulatively pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services and made other concessions in their deals with Trump. They have defended agreements as being aligned with their principles.
At an earlier hearing in the Susman Godfrey case, AliKhan lamented the settling firms were “capitulating” to the Trump White House.
(Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario, Chris Reese, Bill Berkrot and Aurora Ellis)