Addressing Risks From Susman Godfrey

This executive order targets the law firm Susman Godfrey LLP by suspending security clearances for its personnel, restricting federal contracts with the firm and its business partners, limiting federal building access and official engagement with its employees, and barring their federal hiring without waivers. The order frames these measures as responses to alleged election-related litigation, DEI practices, and activities deemed contrary to national interests.

Federal Register Open PDF 90 FR 15615

Impact dates

May 9, 2025
Agencies submit contract assessments with Susman and actions taken to OMB Director

Key directives

Suspend active security clearances for Susman personnel pending national interest review
OMB to identify all government goods, property, and services provided to Susman; agency heads to cease provision
Contractors must disclose any business with Susman and whether related to government contract subject
Agency heads to review all contracts with Susman or entities disclosing Susman business; terminate Susman contracts to maximum extent permitted by law
Within 30 days: agencies submit contract assessments and actions taken to OMB Director
Limit official building access for Susman employees when inconsistent with US interests
Limit official engagement between government employees and Susman employees
Refrain from hiring Susman employees absent agency head waiver with OPM consultation

Who is ordered

Timeline

Immediate

Security clearance suspensions for Susman personnel initiated
OMB identification of government-provided facilities/services to Susman begins
Agency heads begin restricting building access and official engagement with Susman employees

Near term (90d)

Within 30 days: Agencies submit contract assessments to OMB
Agency heads review and begin terminating Susman contracts to maximum extent permitted by law
Contractors must begin disclosing Susman business relationships

Long term

Potential precedent for targeting other law firms or entities (cites similar EO 14230 against Perkins Coie)
Structural changes to federal contracting disclosure requirements
Possible litigation challenging order's legality and First Amendment implications

Risks & tensions

First Amendment and due process concerns: punitive targeting of specific law firm without adjudication raises constitutional challenges
Vague 'national interest' standard for security clearances, access, and hiring creates discretionary overbreadth
Conflict with existing federal contracting law and regulations; 'to extent permitted by law' language signals legal uncertainty
Could chill legal representation in election and civil rights litigation
References EO 14230 (Perkins Coie), suggesting pattern of law firm targeting that may expand