04-15-2025

Addressing Risks From Susman Godfrey

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14263 directs all federal government agencies to sever ties with the private law firm Susman Godfrey LLP. The order mandates the suspension of security clearances, termination of federal contracts, and restrictions on hiring the firm's employees for government positions. [Sec. 2, 3, 5]

Money: There is no specific cost or savings figure associated with this order. It directs agencies to terminate existing contracts and prevents future ones, redirecting federal funds away from Susman Godfrey. Federal contractors will face new compliance costs as they must disclose any business they conduct with the firm. [Sec. 3(a)]

Your Impact: For the vast majority of Americans, there is no direct, immediate impact. The order's effects are concentrated on the employees of Susman Godfrey, companies that are federal contractors and also use the firm's legal services, and the specific government agencies that currently contract with them.

Status: Issued by the White House on April 9, 2025.

What's Actually in the Executive Order

This executive order uses the powers of the executive branch to debar a single, named private company—the law firm Susman Godfrey LLP—from doing business with or receiving resources from the U.S. government. The order asserts that the firm engages in conduct "detrimental to critical American interests," specifically citing its alleged role in "weaponiz[ing] the American legal system," degrading elections, and practicing "unlawful discrimination" through a diversity program. [Sec. 1]

Core Provisions:

  • Suspension of Clearances: The Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence must "immediately take steps" to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Susman Godfrey. [Sec. 2(a)]
  • Contract Termination: All government agencies are required to review their contracts and, to the extent legally possible, terminate any agreement where Susman Godfrey is involved. [Sec. 3(b)(i)]
  • Contractor Disclosure: Any company that works as a federal contractor must now disclose any business it does with Susman Godfrey. [Sec. 3(a)]
  • Personnel Restrictions: The order limits access for the firm's employees to federal buildings and restricts official engagement between them and government employees. [Sec. 5(a)] It also directs agencies to refrain from hiring employees from the firm for government jobs, unless a special waiver is granted. [Sec. 5(b)]
  • Reporting Deadline: Agencies must report an assessment of their contracts with the firm and any actions taken to the Office of Management and Budget within 30 days of the order. [Sec. 3(b)]

Stated Purpose (from the President):

  1. To address what the administration has determined are "significant risks, egregious conduct, and conflicts of interest associated with Susman Godfrey LLP." [Sec. 1]
  2. To ensure that taxpayer funds do not subsidize a firm the administration claims "undermin[es] critical American interests," such as by funding groups that harm military effectiveness or by supporting racial discrimination. [Sec. 1]
  3. To combat "unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' policies," citing as an example a firm program that offers opportunities to "students of color." [Sec. 1]

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Legal Services, Government Contracting, National Security.
Timeline: Actions to suspend clearances and terminate contracts are to begin immediately. The order was issued on April 9, 2025, with agency reports due approximately 30 days later.
Scope: This action is narrowly focused on one specific private entity, Susman Godfrey LLP, its employees, its partners, and any federal contractor that retains its services.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The "DEI" Culture Wars & Legal Scrutiny (Early 2020s):

This executive order is a product of intensifying political and legal battles over Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In the years leading up to 2025, corporate DEI programs became a major focus of political debate. Following landmark Supreme Court rulings that curtailed affirmative action in university admissions, legal challenges were increasingly aimed at similar programs in the private sector. Conservative activists and politicians began arguing that corporate diversity fellowships and hiring goals constituted illegal "reverse discrimination." This executive order brings that conflict directly into the realm of executive action by labeling a specific firm's diversity fellowship as "unlawful discrimination." [Sec. 1] The order also references a similar action against another law firm, Perkins Coie, suggesting a pattern of using executive power to target firms perceived as ideological opponents. [Sec.4]

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • The order represents a strategic escalation, moving from political rhetoric against "woke" corporate policies to direct executive action against a specific company.
  • Targeting a high-profile law firm known for certain political affiliations or types of litigation allows the administration to make a powerful example without the need for new legislation from Congress.
  • By framing the issue as one of national security and proper use of taxpayer funds, the administration aims to use its clear authority over federal contracting and security clearances to achieve its policy goals.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects the employees and clients of a single law firm but does not directly alter the daily lives of most Americans.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • For individuals and groups who believe that corporate DEI programs are discriminatory, this order represents a significant victory and a validation of their position.
  • Competing law firms may benefit from the debarment of Susman Godfrey, potentially gaining new federal contracts or clients.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (3-12 months):

  • Federal projects or legal cases where Susman Godfrey was a contractor could be delayed or complicated as agencies work to terminate contracts and find replacements. [Sec. 3(b)(i)]
  • Companies that are both federal contractors and clients of Susman Godfrey will face immediate compliance challenges and may need to seek new legal counsel to avoid jeopardizing their government business.

Long-term:

  • The order could create a "chilling effect," discouraging other private companies from implementing DEI programs or engaging in politically sensitive legal work for fear of becoming a target for similar executive action.
  • It may establish a new precedent for using the government's vast procurement power to reward or punish companies based on their internal policies or perceived political alignment.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Employees, partners, and clients of Susman Godfrey LLP.
Secondary Groups: Law students considering diversity fellowships, corporate federal contractors, and advocacy groups focused on civil rights and DEI.
Regional Impact: The impact will be most concentrated in the cities where Susman Godfrey maintains offices, including Houston, New York, Los Angeles, and Seattle.

Bottom Line: This executive order uses the federal government's immense power as a contractor and security guarantor to punish a private company for its diversity policies and alleged political activities.

Where the Parties Stand

(Note: As this is an executive order, these positions reflect inferred party alignment based on the order's content and current political dynamics.)

Republican Position: "Restoring Fairness and Protecting National Interests"

Core Stance: Generally supportive, viewing the order as a legitimate use of presidential power to stop taxpayer funds from flowing to a firm engaged in what they consider discriminatory and politically damaging activities.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The President has a duty to ensure federal contractors are responsible and that their actions align with the national interest.
  • ✓ DEI programs that create race-based preferences are a form of illegal discrimination and should not be subsidized by the government.
  • ✓ Law firms that "weaponize" the legal system for political ends should not be entrusted with national secrets or federal contracts. [Sec. 1]

Legislative Strategy: Publicly defend the President's authority to issue the order. In Congress, they would likely block any legislative riders or bills aimed at overturning it and use committee hearings to investigate the targeted firm's conduct.

Democratic Position: "A Political Hit Job and Abuse of Power"

Core Stance: Strongly opposed, viewing the order as a dangerous, politically motivated attack on a private business designed to intimidate and punish perceived opponents.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The order sets a chilling precedent, allowing a president to create an "enemies list" of private companies and punish them without due process.
  • ✓ Diversity fellowship programs are a pro-competitive tool essential for remedying historical underrepresentation in the legal profession and are not illegal.
  • ✗ The executive branch should not be used to retaliate against a law firm based on its litigation history, its clients, or its internal policies.

Legislative Strategy: Introduce legislation or amendments to nullify the order and restrict the President's power to take such actions in the future. Request oversight hearings from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to investigate the legality and motivation behind the order.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The order is based on the President's broad constitutional authority under Article II to oversee the executive branch, as well as statutory authority over federal procurement and national security. The President has significant discretion in determining who qualifies as a "responsible" federal contractor and who is eligible for a security clearance.

Constitutional Implications:

[Bill of Attainder]: This is the most significant constitutional concern. The Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3) prohibits legislative acts that inflict punishment on a specific, named person or group without a judicial trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that this prohibition can apply to executive orders, not just acts of Congress. A court could find that Executive Order 14263 functions as a bill of attainder because it singles out Susman Godfrey by name and imposes a punishment (debarment from contracts, loss of clearances) without a trial or hearing.

[First Amendment]: The firm could argue that the order is unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech—namely, its legal work, its clients' causes, and its public stance on diversity. If the action was motivated by a desire to punish the firm for its views, it could be struck down as a violation of free speech.

[Due Process]: The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Susman Godfrey could argue that its "liberty" to seek government contracts and its "property" interest in existing contracts are being taken away without a proper hearing, notice, or opportunity to be heard.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Susman Godfrey would have strong grounds to file an immediate lawsuit against the U.S. government seeking an injunction to halt the order's enforcement. The lawsuit would almost certainly claim the order is an unconstitutional bill of attainder, a violation of the First Amendment, and a denial of Fifth Amendment due process rights. Civil liberties organizations like the ACLU and legal professional groups would likely file amicus ("friend of the court") briefs in support of the challenge.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call The White House: Contact the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 to express your support for the President's action in E.O. 14263.
  • Contact Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the President's executive order holding federal contractors accountable. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support it."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Send a message to your elected officials and the heads of relevant oversight committees (e.g., House Oversight, Senate Judiciary) explaining why you support the principles in the order.
  • Join an Organization: Organizations that often focus on challenging DEI programs and what they term "weaponized government" include groups like America First Legal or Judicial Watch.

TO OPPOSE THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call The White House: Contact the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 to express your opposition to E.O. 14263.
  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose Executive Order 14263, which is an abuse of executive power."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing that the order is an unconstitutional overreach that sets a dangerous precedent for targeting private businesses for political reasons.
  • Join an Organization: Groups that advocate for civil liberties, due process, and diversity are likely to oppose this order, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or the Brennan Center for Justice.