President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the White House East Room on July 16, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Saul Loeb/Pool via AP, File).
A federal judge has firmly denied the Trump administration’s attempt to remove Susman Godfrey from a closely watched lawsuit challenging the government’s actions against major law firms.
The dispute stems from a case brought by the American Bar Association against a series of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. In a 93-page complaint filed in June 2025, the ABA argued that the orders wielded the federal government’s authority to pressure attorneys and law firms into abandoning clients, legal causes and political positions opposed by the president.
In a six-page ruling, the court also offered a pointed description of the events surrounding the lawsuit—one that could signal how the broader case may unfold.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, appointed by President Joe Biden, wrote that the ABA’s complaint describes a 14-week span during which the government carried out “a coordinated campaign to intimidate and punish law firms and their lawyers based on their speech.”
The executive orders issued by Trump, who served as both the 45th and 47th president, sought to impose “virtually identical sanctions on law firms and their lawyers.” Some firms agreed to concessions to avoid penalties, while others went to court to challenge the administration.
Susman Godfrey was among the firms directly targeted. The firm secured a permanent injunction blocking the executive order aimed at it and later represented the ABA in the current lawsuit. Because the firm had itself been targeted, some of the case’s discovery requests dealt with information connected to that order, Judge Ali explained.
In July, the Justice Department asked the court to disqualify Susman Godfrey, arguing that the firm’s involvement violated Washington, D.C., professional-conduct rules.
The judge has now rejected that position, writing that the government’s argument “is not persuasive for a few reasons.”
The DOJ characterized the dispute as a “textbook case” under the professional ethics rules barring a lawyer from acting as both an advocate and a witness.
Put simply, the government maintained that Susman Godfrey should not continue representing the ABA because one of the firm’s attorneys could potentially be called to testify.
Judge Ali found no evidence supporting that conclusion.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Video: Sydney Bishop Stabbed After Speaking Out Against Zionist Aggression – NewsFinale
“Here, the government does not identify any lawyer at Susman Godfrey who is likely to be a necessary witness at trial,” the judge wrote. He added that the government had acknowledged it could not name anyone who met that standard.
The judge also rejected the idea that Susman Godfrey’s prior legal battle with the Trump administration was enough to justify removing the firm from the case.
The fact that the ABA sought discovery involving the executive order directed at Susman Godfrey does not show that one of the firm’s attorneys is “likely to be a necessary witness,” the ruling states. The government did not identify who would call such an attorney, what the testimony would concern or why it would be essential to resolving a disputed issue.
The DOJ’s broader theory was that Susman Godfrey is a “central player” and an “essential actor” in the litigation. According to the government, the ABA’s effort to obtain information about the order targeting the firm effectively acknowledged that its attorneys were important fact witnesses.
The court found that reasoning unconvincing as well, providing another basis for denying the administration’s disqualification motion.
Judge Ali’s ruling explains:
Rule 3.7(a) limits the participation of individual attorneys, rather than automatically barring an entire law firm. Even if the ABA had identified a Susman Godfrey lawyer who was likely to be a necessary trial witness, the rule’s language would not require the rest of the firm to withdraw. The rule’s comments also clarify that there is no broad principle of imputed disqualification under Rule 3.7. A lawyer’s disqualification extends to another attorney at the same firm only when another rule would independently prevent that attorney from serving as trial counsel.
“The court finds the lawyers representing the ABA in this case are not likely to be necessary witnesses,” Ali concluded. Based on the record, he added, none of those attorneys had even represented Susman Godfrey in its challenge to the executive order aimed at the firm.
The court’s order is likely to clear the path toward resolving a long-simmering discovery dispute between the DOJ and the ABA.
The judge took note of that dispute in the order.
“That the ABA seeks discovery about communications related to Susman Godfrey does not indicate the lawyers representing the ABA here, who may not have even been involved in the communications, are likely to be necessary witnesses,” Ali wrote.
The post ‘Not likely’: Judge rejects Trump admin’s ‘unpersuasive’ effort to disqualify major law firm in American Bar Association case first appeared on Law & Crime.