More than 700 partners from top U.S. law firms have joined forces in a legal brief supporting Susman Godfrey LLP in its constitutional challenge against the Trump administration.
The unprecedented show of solidarity, submitted Friday by the group Law Firm Partners United (LFPU), argues that a recent executive order targeting Susman Godfrey violates multiple constitutional protections, including the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
The brief responds to Executive Order 14263, issued April 9, which directs investigations and potential sanctions against Susman Godfrey for alleged “unlawful discrimination.”
The order specifically cites the firm’s diversity-focused recruitment and scholarship programs that benefit students of color, and threatens the firm’s federal contracts and security clearances. Critics say the move is part of a wider campaign by the Trump administration to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the legal industry and beyond.
In their amicus curiae brief, the LFPU—a coalition formed earlier this month and composed of partners at the 200 largest U.S. law firms by revenue—argues that the order against Susman Godfrey is a dangerous encroachment on judicial independence and a direct threat to constitutional protections:
“By putting law firms’ speech in the crosshairs,” the brief states, “the executive orders have chilled the ability of lawyers and their clients to exercise their First Amendment right to seek redress through the courts.”
The brief also contends that Executive Order 14263 violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process and the Sixth Amendment’s right to legal counsel. LFPU maintains that Susman Godfrey is being targeted not for misconduct, but for its zealous representation of clients and its support of historically underrepresented groups in the legal profession.
The case is part of a broader legal resistance to a series of executive orders from the administration aimed at prominent law firms. Executive Order 14230, signed earlier this month, similarly targets Perkins Coie LLP, accusing it of attempting to “judicially overturn democratically enacted election laws” and engaging in internal racial discrimination. Like Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie is also suing the administration.
Other orders targeting WilmerHale and Jenner & Block were partially blocked by federal judges, while a directive against Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison was rescinded after the firm agreed to implement policy changes and increase pro bono work.
Susman Godfrey has denied the allegations of unlawful discrimination and filed its own court documents last week asserting that the order falsely accuses it of violating federal law. However, neither the firm’s court filings nor the LFPU brief explicitly defend the legality of the DEI programs themselves.
The Biden-era Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has recently issued letters to more than 20 law firms questioning the legality of DEI initiatives, signaling increased federal scrutiny.
A court date in the Susman Godfrey case has not yet been scheduled.
