The Trump administration is justifying the president’s claim that top U.S. law firm Susman Godfrey is a national security threat by citing its donations to an LGBTQ+ legal nonprofit.

Trump targeted Susman Godfrey in an April 9 executive order which sought to revoke security clearance from Susman lawyers and restrict their access to federal buildings. The order was seen as retaliation for the firm having represented Dominion Voting Systems in its 2021 defamation suit against Fox News after the right-leaning media outlet repeated Trump’s claims that Dominion’s voting machines helped “steal” the 2020 election from Trump. During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office last month, White House Deputy Chief of Staff went so far as to falsely suggest that the firm “is very involved in the election misconduct,” according to Bloomberg Law.

Related

Christian nationalism is the driving force behind the Trump administration’s actions
The media keeps downplaying the revolution that is happening in plain sight.

Susman challenged Trump’s order in court, arguing that it violated the firm’s and its clients’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process. On April 15, a federal judge granted the firm a temporary restraining order barring the administration from enforcing parts of the order while the case proceeds. The case was back in court last week, where a lawyer for Trump’s Justice Department faced sharp questioning from U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan about the administration’s justification for Trump’s order, according to Reuters.

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

On Monday, May 12, Lawfare senior editor Roger Parloff posted a screenshot from court filings on Bluesky that indicates the administration’s flimsy rationale.

In his order, Trump alleged that Susman “funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology.” As evidence for the claim, which Susman denies, the Trump Department of Justice cites the fact that the firm “has provided funds to GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), which previously sued the Federal Government to enjoin Department of Defense policy, based on a radical theory of gender ideology.”

In August 2017, GLAD filed a lawsuit on behalf of five transgender servicemembers challenging Trump’s first term trans military ban. The organization later joined Equality California and the National Center for Lesbian Rights as co-counsels in another case challenging the ban.

While Above the Law’s Joe Patrice notes that the administration’s argument that charitable contributions to an LGBTQ+ nonprofit constitute a national security threat is laughable, he also notes that the administration’s characterization of GLAD’s legal challenge is alarming.

“To call a federal [civil rights] lawsuit an effort to undermine the government requires adopting the premise that it’s a threat to make sure the government isn’t doing anything illegal,” Patrice writes.

Susman Godfrey is one of several top law firms that have been the subject of Trump’s recent executive orders. While the firm and three others have chosen to fight the administration in court, nine firms have reportedly struck deals with Trump, promising over $900 million worth of pro bono work for the administration, according to Business Insider.

“The whole point of the Susman Godfrey executive order and those like it is to intimidate law firms into abandoning advocacy on behalf of their clients,” a lawyer for the firm argued in court last week, according to Reuters. “That is unconstitutional, full stop.”

Meanwhile, as Bloomberg Law notes, the firms that have challenged Trump’s executive orders have been winning in court. Like Susman Godfrey, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block have both been granted court orders temporarily blocking large parts of Trump’s orders. And on May 2, a federal judge struck down Trump’s order against Perkins Coie in its entirety, accusing the president of “settling personal vendettas” with his executive orders.

According to CBS News, in her April 15 decision granting Susman’s request for a temporary restraining order, Judge AliKhan also said that Trump’s executive order targeting the firm was “based on a personal vendetta,” adding that the administration’s attempt “to use its immense power to dictate the positions that law firms may or may not take” threatens the foundation of legal representation in the U.S.

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.