Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT et al
Case Number:
1:25-cv-01107
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Eimer Stahl
- Fortney Scott
- Hecker Fink
- Herrera Arellano
- Kaiser PLLC
- Kalbian & Hagerty
- Kropf Moseley
- Merson Law
- Munger Tolles
- Olson Grimsley
- Osborn Maledon
- Wheeler Trigg
- Zimmer Citron
Companies
- American Association of University Professors
- American Civil Liberties Union
- American Federation of Teachers
- Cato Institute
- Center for Individual Rights
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Institute for Justice
- Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
- Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
- Mississippi Center for Justice
- NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund Inc.
- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
- Public Counsel
- Service Employees International Union
- The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Government Agencies
- Administration for Children and Families
- Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
- Appalachian Regional Commission
- Bonneville Power Administration
- Bureau of Economic Analysis
- Bureau of Indian Affairs
- Bureau of Industry and Security
- Bureau of Land Management
- Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
- Bureau of Reclamation
- Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
- Central Intelligence Agency
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Executive Office of the President
- Federal Trade Commission
- Office of the Director of National Intelligence
- Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
- Small Business Administration
- State of Maryland
- State of Michigan
- State of Nevada
- U.S. Army
- U.S. Department of Agriculture
- U.S. Department of Commerce
- U.S. Department of Defense
- U.S. Department of Education
- U.S. Department of Energy
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- U.S. Department of Justice
- U.S. Department of the Interior
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- US Office of Management and Budget
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Sectors & Industries:
-
June 27, 2025
Trump's Susman Godfrey 'Sword Of Damocles' Order Tossed
A Washington, D.C., federal judge Friday struck down as unconstitutional President Donald Trump's executive order targeting Susman Godfrey LLP, saying it was issued in retaliation for the firm's representation of clients and causes with which the president disagrees, while hanging "like the sword of Damocles" over the BigLaw firm.
-
May 16, 2025
Employment Lawyers' Weekly DEI Cheat Sheet
Harvard University assured the Trump administration that it doesn't use race- or ethnicity-based quotas in hiring, a law firm pipeline program was accused of disadvantaging white applicants, and Indiana's attorney general demanded that the University of Notre Dame answer questions about its efforts to diversify its faculty. Here, Law360 looks at notable DEI-related legal developments from the past week.
-
May 09, 2025
Employment Lawyers' Weekly DEI Cheat Sheet
A D.C. federal judge appeared skeptical of the Trump administration鈥檚 claim that Susman Godfrey LLP violated anti-discrimination law, a Massachusetts federal judge ordered the government to define what it means by 鈥渄iversity, equity and inclusion鈥 and a new member was nominated to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Here, Law360 looks at notable DEI-related legal developments over the past week.
-
May 08, 2025
Judge Seems To Favor Susman Godfrey In Trump Challenge
A D.C. federal judge appeared poised Thursday to allow Susman Godfrey LLP's challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order targeting the firm to proceed or to grant the firm a summary judgment win altogether, after she pressed a government attorney on the president's basis for alleging discrimination at the firm.
-
May 05, 2025
Susman Godfrey Urges Court To Follow Perkins Coie EO Win
The president doesn't have the power to "exact revenge against a law firm" for representing certain clients and causes, Susman Godfrey LLP told a D.C. federal judge Monday, asking her to "follow the same course" as the judge who granted Perkins Coie LLP permanent relief from a presidential order.
-
April 30, 2025
Susman Godfrey Urges Court To Reject Trump's Dismissal Bid
Susman Godfrey LLP has pressed a D.C. federal court not to kill the firm's suit challenging President Donald Trump's executive order targeting the firm, arguing that the government's "meritless" dismissal motion "goes to great lengths to distract from the indisputable truth" that the order is "blatantly unconstitutional."
-
April 25, 2025
Employment Lawyers' Weekly DEI Cheat Sheet
Harvard University sued the government over its threat to yank billions in funding unless the elite institution undertakes reforms including shuttering diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and three federal judges threw up roadblocks to the U.S. Department of Education's effort to eliminate DEI in public schools.
-
April 25, 2025
BigLaw Partners, Judges Back Susman Godfrey In EO Suit
Hundreds of BigLaw partners and former judges on Friday threw their support behind Susman Godfrey LLP's lawsuit in D.C. federal court over President Donald Trump's executive order targeting the firm, warning that if "the independent bar is cowed into submission" it will threaten "the rule of law itself."
-
April 24, 2025
21 Democratic AGs Back Susman Godfrey In Trump EO Fight
Twenty-one Democratic attorneys general filed a brief Thursday supporting Susman Godfrey LLP's fight against President Donald Trump's executive order revoking its access to government resources, saying it threatens lawyers' freedom to represent clients disfavored by the government, such as when John Adams defended British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre.
-
April 24, 2025
Susman Godfrey Seeks Permanent Shut Down Of Trump Order
Susman Godfrey LLP on Wednesday urged a D.C. federal court to permanently block President Donald Trump's executive order revoking the law firm's access to government resources, chiding the order as a clear case of "unconstitutional retaliation" and an obvious bid to "chill protected advocacy."