There’s still some uncertainty as to why, exactly, Donald Trump added Susman Godfrey to his list of targeted law firms. In the other executive orders the president signed seeking to punish other firms, he at least tried to justify his offensive. With Susman Godfrey, he barely bothered.
Naturally, this led to speculation about the Republican’s motivation. Did Trump go after the firm because of its role in a lawsuit against Fox News? Did this have something to do with Susman Godfrey representing a client suing Rudy Giuliani? Perhaps this stemmed from the fact that the firm is involved in a case against Elon Musk’s X (the social media platform formerly known as Twitter)?
While we don’t know why the White House launched this offensive, we do know that the offensive is already struggling. The New York Times reported:
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump from punishing the law firm Susman Godfrey, calling the retribution campaign he has waged from the White House against the nation’s top firms “a shocking abuse of power.” Ruling from the bench, Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia said that the executive order Mr. Trump signed last week targeting the firm stemmed from a “personal vendetta.”
This was a preliminary step. Susman Godfrey sought a temporary restraining order, and the judge agreed, which means Trump’s executive order has been blocked and the punishments the president sought to impose are on hold. That said, the underlying case is ongoing.
Stepping back, however, it’s hard not to notice the recent winning streak for law firms that have fought back against the White House instead of trying to appease the president.
One of the first firms to be targeted, Perkins Coie, filed suit against Trump rather than giving in, and soon after, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell temporarily blocked the president’s policy, saying in reference to the executive order, “It sends little chills down my spine.” The judge added, “I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through.”
It was the first in a series of related setbacks for the White House. Around the same time, Jenner & Block was targeted; it also sought a temporary order blocking Trump’s attack, and it also succeeded. With WilmerHale, the exact same thing happened.
In other words, four of the 14 targeted firms fought back rather than giving in, and all four have — at least for now — prevailed when seeking temporary restraining orders, stopping Trump’s gambit in its tracks.
As for the firms that chose appeasement, it’s hard not to wonder how many of them regret their decisions. I’m not privy to their internal deliberations, of course, but many of them likely made a cost-benefit analysis: Concerned about losing lucrative clients, they probably decided it’d be cheaper to simply give in.
So, they entered into negotiations with the White House — or, more accurately, Trump’s highly controversial and recently indicted personal attorney, who’s reportedly helping take the lead on these deals — and committed to nearly $1 billion in free legal services in order to make the president happy.
Given the available evidence, fighting back didn’t just help some of Trump’s targets preserve their reputations, it also seems vastly cheaper.
