EU Signals Major Shift on 2035 Combustion Engine Ban Amid Auto Industry Pressure 
U.S. State Department Reverts to Times New Roman in Push for “Professionalism” 
Trump Signs Executive Order to Establish National AI Regulation Standard 
Environmental Group Sues to Block Trump Image on U.S. National Park Passes 
Taiwan Political Standoff Deepens as President Lai Urges Parliament to Withdraw Disputed Laws 
Ukraine Claims First-Ever Underwater Drone Strike on Russian Missile Submarine 
Supporters Gather Ahead of Verdict in Jimmy Lai’s Landmark Hong Kong National Security Trial 
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Pause on New Wind-Energy Permits 
U.S. Pressures ICC to Limit Authority as Washington Threatens New Sanctions 
International Outcry Grows Over Re-Arrest of Nobel Laureate Narges Mohammadi in Iran 
Bolivia’s Ex-President Luis Arce Detained in Embezzlement Probe 
Trump Sues BBC for Defamation Over Edited Capitol Riot Speech Clip 
Ireland Limits Planned Trade Ban on Israeli Settlements to Goods Only 
Korea Zinc to Build $7.4 Billion Critical Minerals Refinery in Tennessee With U.S. Government Backing 
Trump Administration Fuel-Efficiency Rollback Could Raise Long-Term Costs for U.S. Drivers 
U.S. Homeland Security Ends TSA Union Contract, Prompting Legal Challenge 
A federal judge has permanently blocked a controversial executive order by President Donald Trump aimed at the law firm Susman Godfrey. The decision marks a major legal victory for the firm, which alleged retaliation for its political and legal positions, particularly its defense of the 2020 election's integrity.
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that Trump’s order violated Susman’s constitutional rights, including free speech and due process. The order had suspended the firm’s security clearances and restricted access to federal buildings and contracts, actions AliKhan said “threaten the independence of the bar.”
Susman Godfrey represents Dominion Voting Systems in defamation lawsuits tied to false claims of election fraud. The firm argued Trump’s order was retaliatory, linked to its work opposing election misinformation and promoting workplace diversity. The judge noted that the administration failed to prove any legal wrongdoing by Susman in its hiring practices or legal representation.
The ruling follows similar decisions from other federal judges in Washington, who sided with law firms like Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block in rejecting similar Trump executive orders. These orders, all aimed at firms connected to Trump critics or adversaries, were deemed unconstitutional and politically motivated.
While nine other major law firms, including Skadden Arps, Kirkland & Ellis, and Latham & Watkins, settled with the Trump administration by pledging pro bono legal work worth nearly $1 billion, Susman pursued its challenge in court.
The White House defended the order, stating that granting security clearances falls under presidential authority. However, legal experts say the court’s decision reinforces the legal profession’s independence and First Amendment protections.
Susman called the ruling a “resounding victory” for the rule of law and the right to legal representation without government retaliation.
