Elite litigation firm Susman Godfrey is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order targeting the firm, it emerged on Friday (11 April), the same day Trump announced five more law firms had cut deals with his administration to avoid punitive executive action. 

Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft have reached agreements that will see them provide a combined $600m in pro bono legal work for the administration, according to announcements by Trump on social media. 

The deals come as Trump continues his campaign targeting law firms he maintains have supported efforts to unfairly prosecute him or help his opponents, alongside a broader effort by his administration to challenge diversity, equity and inclusion policies. 

They mean Trump has secured a total of $940m in pro bono work following similar agreements his administration made with Paul Weiss, Skadden, Milbank and Willkie Farr & Gallagher. 

Meantime Susman Godfrey’s decision to fight back follows Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale filing separate lawsuits against executive orders targeting them. 

Susman Godfrey, which secured Dominion Voting Systems a multimillion dollar settlement against Fox News over false claims the network aired following the 2020 White House election, filed for injunctive relief in federal court in Washington DC on Friday after being hit with an executive order last Wednesday (9 April). 

Like earlier orders, the one targeting Susman restricted its employees’ access to federal buildings, instructed agencies to terminate contracts with the firm and its clients and revoked its lawyers’ security clearances. 

“Unless the judiciary acts with resolve – now – to repudiate this blatantly unconstitutional executive order and the others like it, a dangerous and perhaps irreversible precedent will be set,” Susman’s complaint alleges. 

It continues: “If President Trump’s executive orders are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they seek to retaliate against a different set of perceived foes. What for two centuries has been beyond the pale will become the new normal.” 

The firm is being represented by a Munger Tolles & Olson team led by former solicitor general Don Verrilli, who has co-filed amicus briefs signed by hundreds of law firms backing the suits brought by Perkins Coie, Jenner and WilmerHale.   

Those firms have been granted preliminary court orders blocking most aspects of executive orders, with Jenner and WilmerHale subsequently filing motions for summary judgment seeking to permanently block the orders in their entirety.

Law firms’ differing responses to the orders have divided the legal profession. Many of the largest US firms – including those that made deals announced on Friday – were conspicuously absent from the amicus briefs co-filed by Verrilli and have not voiced any public opposition, leading to criticism they are emboldening Trump in his efforts to intimidate the legal profession. 

Kirkland, Latham, A&O Shearman and Simpson Thacher have each pledged $125m to pro bono causes shared with the Trump administration as part of of their agreements, according to Trump. Meantime Cadwalader will dedicate $100m; the firm previously employed deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, who left the firm in 2023 to represent Trump in criminal cases when the firm would not take Trump as a client. 

Trump’s post on the Truth Social platform said the firms would not “engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences”, and would not “deny representation to clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups and government officials, employees and advisors”.

As part of the agreements, Trump said the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had withdrawn its 17 March letters to the firms demanding information about their DEI practices and would not pursue any claims related to those issues. 

A group of former EEOC officials wrote in their own 18 March letter that the EEOC’s inquiry was misleading, adding they had “grave concerns” about its legality.