In a powerful and highly unusual display of unity, thousands of attorneys across the United States participated in a coordinated “Day of Action” on Thursday, gathering at rallies from coast to coast to protest what they describe as the Trump administration’s ongoing “assault on the rule of law.”

This rare public mobilization by members of the traditionally conservative and risk-averse legal profession is being widely hailed as a clarion call against what many fear is a deepening constitutional crisis.

A Unprecedented Show of Legal Solidarity

From New York City to Los Angeles, Chicago to Dallas, attorneys gathered at courthouses, law schools, and public squares.

Lawyers—often seen as cautious actors reluctant to enter the political fray—spoke out against what they characterize as blatant abuses of executive power, including:

• Retaliatory executive orders targeting law firms and judges
• Attempts to undermine judicial independence
• Executive actions defying established constitutional norms

Signs reading “Defend the Rule of Law” and “Lawyers Against Authoritarianism” were widely seen among the demonstrators.

“The legal profession must not remain silent when core democratic principles are at stake,” said Amanda Rivera, a constitutional law scholar and one of the rally organizers in Washington, D.C.

Why Now? A Growing Sense of Urgency

Several factors catalyzed the Day of Action:

1. Executive Overreach
   Recent executive orders targeting legal organizations, including high-profile Biglaw firms engaged in civil rights advocacy or defending immigration protections, have set off alarms in the legal community.
2. Judicial Intimidation
   Reports of attempts to pressure or intimidate judges handling cases challenging administration policies have further galvanized attorneys.
3. Assault on Free Expression and Dissent
   Legal experts warn that punishing attorneys and firms for taking on certain clients or causes represents a dangerous slide toward authoritarianism.

Bar Associations and Legal Groups Speak Out

Prominent organizations lent their voices to the cause:

• The American Bar Association (ABA) issued a statement condemning “any governmental action that seeks to punish lawyers for fulfilling their ethical duty to provide counsel.”
• State bar associations in California, New York, and Illinois expressed solidarity with the protestors and pledged to protect the independence of legal professionals.
• Law professors from top law schools—including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and the University of Chicago—joined the rallies or issued public statements of support.

“This is not about partisan politics. It’s about safeguarding the foundations of our democracy,” said David Lin, a former federal prosecutor who addressed a rally in San Francisco.

The Legal Profession’s Historical Role in Defending Democracy

While rare, this is not the first time attorneys have mobilized en masse to defend democratic values:

• In the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre, Justice Department officials resigned rather than obey President Nixon’s order to fire the Watergate special prosecutor.
• During the 2017 travel ban, hundreds of immigration lawyers flocked to airports nationwide to provide pro bono assistance to stranded travelers.

Legal historians note that moments of constitutional peril often inspire the legal community to action—though rarely on the scale seen during the Day of Action.

Critics Respond

Trump administration officials dismissed the rallies as “political theater” and accused participating attorneys of partisan bias. A White House spokesperson claimed that the executive orders in question are “fully lawful” and necessary for national security and public order.

However, critics argue that labeling dissent as political opportunism is itself a sign of democratic backsliding.

What Comes Next?

Organizers say the Day of Action is only the beginning. Plans are underway to:

• Launch ongoing public education campaigns about the rule of law.
• File new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of recent executive orders.
• Advocate for state and federal legislation to protect attorneys from government retaliation.

Final Thoughts

The Day of Action rallies mark a watershed moment for the American legal profession. Attorneys who once shunned political visibility are now stepping into the public arena—not to advocate for partisan causes, but to uphold the bedrock principles of American democracy.

As challenges to the Constitution intensify, many believe this show of solidarity among lawyers could be a critical bulwark against further erosion of civil liberties and judicial independence.

The post Thousands of Attorneys Rally Nationwide in ‘Day of Action’ to Defend the Rule of Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Introduction

In a dramatic show of solidarity, hundreds of BigLaw partners and former judges have voiced their support for Susman Godfrey LLP in its legal battle against an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The executive action, widely criticized as retaliatory and unconstitutional, specifically targeted Susman Godfrey for representing politically disfavored clients. Leading figures in the legal community warn that yielding to political pressure endangers the independence of the bar and the very foundation of the rule of law.

This escalating clash has become a flashpoint for issues of lawyer independence, judicial integrity, and separation of powers — and could shape the future of attorney-client representation in the United States.

What the Lawsuit Is About

Susman Godfrey LLP filed suit after Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to terminate all contracts and refuse to engage with law firms representing clients “in opposition to American values,” a phrase many have deemed vague and unconstitutional.

At the heart of the firm’s complaint:

• Violation of First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech and association.
• Retaliation against attorneys for representing unpopular or politically disfavored clients.
• Chilling effect on lawyers’ willingness to represent controversial clients in the future.
• Separation of powers concerns, as the executive branch attempts to punish private actors without judicial due process.

Legal scholars and practitioners alike have labeled the order an abuse of executive power that could set a dangerous precedent.

BigLaw and Judicial Heavyweights Speak Out

On Friday, over 300 partners from major firms—including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Gibson Dunn, and Skadden Arps—joined more than 50 retired judges in filing an amicus brief supporting Susman Godfrey.

Their message was clear:

“If the independent bar is cowed into submission by executive fiat, the rule of law itself will suffer irreparable harm.”

The signatories argue that lawyers must be free to represent all clients, regardless of political popularity, without fear of government retaliation. The brief stresses that:

• The Constitution protects the attorney-client relationship as critical to ensuring equal justice.
• Efforts to intimidate or punish lawyers based on who they represent violate fundamental legal norms.
• The executive order creates a hostile environment for attorneys, chilling advocacy and undermining civil liberties.

Why This Fight Matters for the Legal Profession

The lawsuit isn’t just about one firm—it’s about preserving the independence of the entire legal profession.

Key implications include:

• Freedom of Representation: Lawyers must be free to advocate without fear of retaliation.
• Checks and Balances: Executive overreach into the legal profession undermines constitutional safeguards.
• Client Access to Justice: If firms refuse to represent controversial clients out of fear, marginalized groups will lose vital legal protections.
• Rule of Law: A strong, independent bar is essential for maintaining a fair legal system where government power is subject to limits.

Legal organizations, including the American Bar Association and state bar associations, have also voiced concern about the broader chilling effect the executive order could have if allowed to stand.

The Larger Constitutional Crisis Looming

Trump’s executive order against Susman Godfrey is part of a larger pattern of efforts to intimidate institutions that act independently from the executive branch.

This incident parallels other ongoing legal battles involving:

• Targeting law schools over perceived political biases.
• Punishing media outlets for unfavorable coverage.
• Pressuring private universities by threatening to cut federal funding based on ideological grounds.

Many experts warn that these cumulative actions pose a serious threat to constitutional democracy. Allowing government officials to selectively punish attorneys based on who they represent would erode the rights to due process, free speech, and fair access to the courts.

What’s Next for the Susman Godfrey Case?

The lawsuit is expected to proceed through the federal courts, where it may ultimately land before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Key issues the courts will decide include:

• Whether the executive order violates the First Amendment.
• Whether Susman Godfrey has standing to challenge the executive order.
• Whether the government can legally penalize private parties for the clients they choose to represent.

Given the stakes, this could become a landmark case defining executive authority and lawyer independence for years to come.

FAQs

What is Susman Godfrey suing over?

Susman Godfrey LLP is challenging a Trump executive order that they argue retaliates against the firm for representing politically disfavored clients, violating their constitutional rights to free speech and association.

Why are BigLaw partners and judges supporting Susman Godfrey?

Hundreds of legal leaders believe that permitting political retaliation against law firms will weaken the independence of the bar, chill advocacy, and undermine the rule of law in the U.S.

Could this case affect all law firms?

Yes. If the courts uphold Trump’s executive order, it could open the door to future governments punishing firms based on the clients they serve, threatening the attorney-client relationship and access to justice.

What are the constitutional issues involved?

Key constitutional questions include violations of the First Amendment (free speech, free association) and separation of powers concerns regarding executive overreach into the legal system.

How might this case impact the rule of law?

If attorneys are intimidated into refusing to represent disfavored clients, it could erode core principles of justice, access to legal representation, and constitutional checks on government power.

The post Hundreds of BigLaw Partners and Judges Rally Behind Susman Godfrey in Lawsuit Against Trump Executive Order first appeared on JDJournal Blog.