Trump’s Approval of AI Chip Sales to China Triggers Bipartisan National Security Concerns 
California, 18 States Sue to Block Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee 
Judge Orders Return of Seized Evidence in Comey-Related Case, DOJ May Seek New Warrant 
Air Force One Delivery Delayed to 2028 as Boeing Faces Rising Costs 
Ireland Limits Planned Trade Ban on Israeli Settlements to Goods Only 
Ukraine’s NATO Concession Unlikely to Shift Peace Talks, Experts Say 
U.S. Special Forces Intercept Ship Carrying Military Components Bound for Iran 
Trump Administration Unveils High-Priced “Trump Gold Card” Visa Program 
Colombia’s Clan del Golfo Peace Talks Signal Mandatory Prison Sentences for Top Leaders 
Special Prosecutor Alleges Yoon Suk Yeol Sought North Korea Provocation to Justify Martial Law 
Zelenskiy Signals Willingness to Drop NATO Bid as Ukraine, U.S. Hold Crucial Peace Talks in Berlin 
U.S.-EU Tensions Rise After $140 Million Fine on Elon Musk’s X Platform 
DOJ Sues Loudoun County School Board Over Transgender Locker Room Policy 
Tunisia Protests Grow as Opposition Unites Against President Kais Saied’s Rule 
U.S. Pressures ICC to Limit Authority as Washington Threatens New Sanctions 
Trump Administration Fuel-Efficiency Rollback Could Raise Long-Term Costs for U.S. Drivers 
Thailand Vows Continued Military Action Amid Cambodia Border Clash Despite Trump Ceasefire Claim 
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.
