IN THIS ISSUE

COURTS & LITIGATION

Trump Appeals Susman Godfrey Decision

• Trump files appeal to revive executive order against law firm Susman Godfrey

OVERVIEW

On August 22, 2025, the Trump administration filed an appeal seeking to overturn a federal court ruling that struck down its executive order penalizing the law firm Susman Godfrey. The appeal follows similar filings in cases involving Perkins Coie (see Issue 21) and Jenner & Block (see Issue 22), marking a coordinated effort to revive an executive initiative aimed at punishing prominent law firms accused of engaging in “partisan lawfare.”

In the Susman Godfrey case, Judge AliKhan of the U.S. District Court for D.C. issued a permanent injunction on June 27, 2025, declaring the order unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. The judge described the order as a “shocking abuse of power” designed to punish the firm for exercising its constitutional rights. Unlike Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale — which earlier secured permanent injunctions — Susman Godfrey had initially obtained only a temporary restraining order to protect its federal contracting eligibility and security clearances. The June 27 ruling, however, made clear that the executive order itself was an unprecedented attempt by the executive branch to penalize a private law firm for its legal work and clients.

By appealing, the administration is pressing forward despite repeated district court defeats. The strategy appears aimed at leveraging the appellate courts, where the administration has lately fared better.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Susman Godfrey ruling underscores the constitutional limits on executive authority when it comes to penalizing law firms for their clients or cases. Judge AliKhan’s June 27 permanent injunction went further than the earlier temporary order, making explicit that the executive order violated multiple constitutional protections — including the First Amendment right to petition the government, due process guarantees, and the separation of powers. By labeling the order a “shocking abuse of power,” the court highlighted not only its unconstitutionality but also the danger it posed to the independence of the bar.

This case, alongside the Perkins Coie (Issue 20) and Jenner & Block (Issue 22) injunctions, reflects a judicial consensus: the executive branch cannot use contracting authority as a weapon to silence or punish law firms engaged in lawful representation. The courts have treated these orders as attempts to chill core constitutional rights — punishing law firms for taking positions adverse to the administration in litigation.

While the administration has chosen to leverage the appellate courts in search of more favorable outcomes, the underlying legal principles are firmly established. Federal courts have long recognized the importance of protecting lawyers from retaliation based on their representation of unpopular clients or causes. If such executive orders were upheld, they would erode the foundational commitment to independent legal advocacy — a principle essential not only to the profession but also to the functioning of the adversarial system itself.

BRIDGE POV

The Susman Godfrey decision once again affirms what courts have consistently recognized: executive power cannot be used to punish law firms for the clients they represent or the arguments they advance. Each successive ruling — from Perkins Coie to Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey — reinforces a judicial consensus that constitutional rights and legal independence are not negotiable.

Yet the legal environment is no longer settled. The administration’s appeal in the Susman Godfrey case, continues the same strategy it has pursued with Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block: seeking reversals at the appellate level, where its win rate is higher — particularly at the Supreme Court.

For the business and legal community, this moment is not about politics — it is about principle. The ability of law firms to represent clients without fear of retaliation is foundational to both the rule of law and to corporate confidence in a fair, functioning legal system.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reaffirm Legal Independence and Values: Publicly restate your organization’s commitment to legal independence and the right to representation without political interference — reinforcing trust with clients, employees, and stakeholders.
    
2. Prepare for Appellate-Level Outcomes: Monitor the appellate trajectory of these cases and scenario-plan communications for possible reversals. As seen with Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, appellate rulings could set binding precedent across sectors.
    
3. Safeguard Trust Through Consistency: Align leadership, legal, and communications teams on clear principles: legal independence is not partisan. Consistent messaging mitigates risk and protects reputational integrity.

See also: “Summary Judgment for Susman Godfrey; Trump Administration Appeals Perkins Coie Decision” (Issue 20) and “Appeals Continue in Executive Order Cases Targeting Law Firms” (Issue 22).

FEDERAL FUNDING & OVERSIGHT

Supreme Court Greenlights Cuts to DEI-Linked NIH Grants

• Supreme Court allows Trump administration to terminate $783 million in NIH grants linked to DEI initiatives

OVERVIEW

On August 19, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision allowing the Trump administration to proceed with cutting certain National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The ruling lifts a prior injunction issued by the D.C. District Court that had temporarily blocked the administration from canceling grants supporting early-career researchers from underrepresented backgrounds and funding for minority health disparity centers.

The challenged cuts stem from Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which rescinded funding streams explicitly designed to expand representation in medical research. The administration argued these programs amounted to unlawful race- and gender-based preferences, while plaintiffs — including universities, medical associations, and public health organizations — contended they were lawful, Congressionally authorized programs essential to addressing inequities in biomedical research.

In siding with the administration, the Court’s majority emphasized deference to executive discretion in allocating federal funds under the EO, framing the issue as one of administrative authority rather than constitutional rights. The dissent, however, warned that permitting the abrupt cancellation of DEI-linked research undermines Congress’s intent, disrupts the scientific enterprise, and disproportionately harms underrepresented communities in medicine and public health.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Supreme Court’s August 19 decision reflects a significant shift in how courts may treat federal funding tied to diversity and inclusion efforts. By allowing the Trump administration to cut NIH grants under Executive Order 14173, the majority framed the issue not as a matter of civil rights, but of administrative authority — holding that the executive branch has broad discretion to direct or rescind funding streams absent explicit Congressional mandates. 

The dissenting justices, however, underscored that many of the affected NIH programs were Congressionally authorized, raising concerns that the administration’s actions exceeded executive authority and disregarded the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements for notice, justification, and reasoned decision-making. They also warned of the practical harm to biomedical research: disruption of long-term studies, erosion of scientific workforce diversity, and disproportionate impact on health equity initiatives. Legally, the ruling signals a narrower judicial tolerance for DEI-linked funding programs, especially those perceived as race-conscious, even when they are tied to broader congressional intent. It also affirms the expansive power of executive orders in the federal funding context — an area where agencies often operate with significant discretion, but where abrupt reversals may now gain judicial backing despite potential conflicts with statutory purposes. 

Taken together, the decision suggests a willingness by the Court’s conservative majority to privilege executive control over program continuity.

BRIDGE POV

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow cuts to NIH’s DEI-linked grants underscores a troubling pattern: executive power is being wielded not only to shift policy but to dismantle decades of progress in expanding equity within federally funded research.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent, the ruling reflects a “radical departure from the Court’s duty to safeguard the rights of all Americans,” warning that “[by] allowing the executive to eviscerate Congressionally authorized programs under the guise of administrative discretion, the majority hands the keys of public funding to ideology rather than law.” She further condemned the majority’s approach as “Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins."

Her rebuke is a stark reminder that the stakes here extend beyond budget lines — they go to the heart of whether federal support for equity-driven research will be allowed to stand on stable legal ground.

For the business and academic community, this moment demands clarity of principle. Institutions cannot assume that long-standing, Congressionally backed programs are insulated from political winds. Instead, they must prepare for a funding landscape increasingly defined by volatility and contestation — and respond by reaffirming the essential role of equity in driving innovation, trust, and scientific excellence.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Audit and Secure Funding Streams: Review current federal grant portfolios for DEI-linked programs and assess exposure to executive action. Build contingency plans for continuity through alternative funding sources where possible.
    
2. Reaffirm Equity as a Research Imperative: Communicate internally and externally that inclusion in research is not a “political add-on” but a core driver of innovation and scientific excellence. Frame equity as central to mission and outcomes, not a discretionary initiative.
    
3. Strengthen Advocacy and Coalitions: Engage with academic associations, health organizations, and civil rights groups to push for Congressional oversight. Coalition advocacy can amplify the case that federally funded research must remain rooted in law and scientific integrity, not political expediency.

EDUCATION & ADMISSIONS

GMU President Rejects OCR’s Demand for Apology Over DEI Hiring Practices

• George Mason University president won't apologize for DEI policies, lawyer says  

OVERVIEW

On August 21, 2025, George Mason University (GMU) President Gregory Washington publicly rejected a demand from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that he issue a personal apology for the university’s prior use of DEI-related hiring practices. The OCR determination followed a Department of Justice investigation into GMU’s hiring policies first reported in Issue 22, where federal officials alleged that race-conscious practices violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

In its resolution proposal, OCR requested that Washington personally apologize and commit to revising hiring procedures to eliminate DEI considerations. Washington, backed by legal counsel and the GMU Board of Visitors, declined, arguing that the university had already reformed its policies in line with federal requirements and that an apology would amount to an admission of unlawful conduct the institution disputes.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The GMU dispute illustrates the legal tension between federal enforcement authority under Title VI and institutional autonomy in hiring. As noted in Issue 22, the DOJ’s investigation found that GMU’s DEI-related hiring practices constituted impermissible race-conscious decision-making. OCR followed by demanding a personal apology from President Washington, an unusual enforcement step that moved beyond corrective action into compelled acknowledgment of fault.

GMU’s refusal underscores a rising trend of institutional resistance to punitive compliance demands that hinge on ideological conformity. By disputing both the substance of OCR’s findings and the procedural basis for enforcement, the university is signaling that compelled apologies may exceed agency authority under Title VI and risk infringing First Amendment protections against coerced speech.

BRIDGE POV

GMU’s stance reflects a broader reality facing institutions today: compliance is no longer just about law, but about ideology. When federal agencies move beyond corrective measures into compelled apologies, they risk eroding trust and legitimacy. By refusing to concede where it believes no violation occurred, GMU has highlighted a critical line — institutions can address compliance concerns without surrendering their values or admitting fault under coercion.

For business and education leaders, this is a cautionary moment. It demonstrates both the expansion of enforcement tactics and the importance of preparing principled responses that protect reputation while guarding against overreach.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Differentiate Compliance From Concession: Ensure responses to federal or state oversight clearly separate corrective policy steps from admissions of fault that may carry legal or reputational consequences.
    
2. Assert Procedural Fairness: If faced with investigatory demands, examine whether agencies have identified victims, documented fact-finding, and followed proper process. Gaps can form the basis for principled resistance.
    
3. Prepare Values-Based Communications: Craft messaging that reinforces institutional commitments to equity and fairness while challenging overreach. Doing so maintains trust internally and externally, even under scrutiny.
    

See also: “DOJ Targets George Mason University” (Issue 22).