A federal judge has permanently struck down Donald Trump’s Executive Order targeting law firms involved in litigation against him, marking his fourth straight judicial defeat and exposing deep constitutional violations.
At a Glance
- A federal judge ruled Trump’s order against Susman Godfrey unconstitutional.
- The order attempted to punish firms involved in litigation against Trump.
- It violated First and Fifth Amendment protections, the court found.
- This is Trump’s fourth consecutive loss over related executive actions.
- Legal analysts say it sharply curtails retaliatory presidential authority.
Legal Defeat with Constitutional Stakes
On June 27, 2025, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan permanently blocked an Executive Order signed by Donald Trump that targeted law firm Susman Godfrey, known for its role in representing Dominion Voting Systems. The court determined the order violated constitutional protections for due process and free speech.
According to a federal court ruling, the judge condemned the executive action as punitive and politically motivated. The decision echoes recent defeats of other orders Trump issued against major firms like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block. Susman Godfrey attorneys argued the move was an unlawful attempt to silence legal opposition—an argument the court affirmed in full.
Pattern of Judicial Rejection
This is the fourth such order struck down in as many months. Prior rulings also found Trump’s executive orders overstepped legal authority by targeting legal entities based on political hostility. In this latest decision, Judge AliKhan reaffirmed that the presidency cannot be used as a weapon to punish dissent through contract or clearance revocation.
Legal reporting confirms that all four court decisions invoked similar constitutional principles: the right of law firms to represent clients without fear of retribution, and the limits on executive power to impose political discipline. Legal experts say these back-to-back defeats significantly restrict future attempts to use federal authority in retaliatory ways.
Redefining Executive Boundaries
The ruling contributes to a growing judicial backlash against sweeping uses of executive power. A related Supreme Court decision earlier this week limited the scope of nationwide injunctions, signaling a continued tightening of federal authority boundaries.
As Trump continues to navigate legal and political terrain, these rulings place firm constitutional guardrails around any future efforts to punish opponents through state power. The courts, at least for now, appear united in defense of legal independence and constitutional limits.
