Judge temporarily blocks Trump from retaliating against firm that sued Fox News

Apnews - Apr 15th, 2025

A federal judge placed a temporary restraining order on much of Donald Trump's executive order that banned the federal government from contracting with entities employing the law firm Susman Godfrey. This decision marks the fourth time a judge has found Trump's targeting of law firms, particularly those involved in election-related cases, as potentially unconstitutional. District Court Judge Loren AliKhan criticized the order, indicating it likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments. The firm, which secured a major settlement from Fox News for election misinformation, is among several targeted by Trump, though others have settled by agreeing to provide free legal work for his causes.

The restraining order, effective for 14 days, highlights a broader issue of presidential overreach, as Trump's actions are seen as an abuse of power. The judge's decision underscores the judicial pushback against attempts to penalize law firms based on their clients or political work. The case reflects ongoing tensions between Trump's administration and the legal profession, with implications for how government contracts and legal representation are managed. Attorney General Pam Bondi's criticism of the ruling and her assertion of agency discretion further complicate the landscape, while the upcoming libel trial against Newsmax adds urgency to the unfolding legal battle.

Donald Trump Executive Order Constitutional Law Federal Contracts Judicial Rulings Susman Godfrey Election Misinformation

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and generally accurate account of a significant legal development involving Donald Trump's executive order and the law firm Susman Godfrey. While it effectively highlights the judge's ruling and the ongoing legal challenges, it lacks balance in presenting the government's perspective and fails to provide detailed context about the executive order's provisions. The reliance on statements from involved parties without additional external sources affects the article's source quality and transparency. Despite these limitations, the story addresses important public interest topics and has the potential to influence public opinion and spark discussion on executive power and constitutional rights. However, to fully engage and inform readers, the article would benefit from a more comprehensive exploration of the legal arguments and broader implications of the case.

Accuracy

The story provides a generally accurate account of the legal proceedings involving Donald Trump’s executive order and Susman Godfrey. The article correctly identifies the federal judge, Loren AliKhan, and her ruling that temporarily restrains the order, citing potential constitutional violations. However, the story lacks specific references to the exact provisions of the executive order and the detailed reasoning behind the judge's decision, which would enhance verifiability. Additionally, while the article mentions settlements with other law firms, it doesn't specify the terms or amounts involved, which are crucial for full accuracy.

Balance

The article predominantly presents the perspective of those opposed to Trump's executive order, particularly highlighting the judge's critical remarks and the arguments of Susman Godfrey's representatives. While it briefly mentions the Department of Justice's defense of the order, the piece lacks a more thorough exploration of the government's rationale and the broader context of presidential authority in contracting decisions. This imbalance may lead readers to view the issue through a primarily one-sided lens.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making the main events and claims easy to follow. It effectively conveys the judge's decision and the ongoing legal battle. However, the narrative could benefit from a more straightforward presentation of the legal arguments and the context of the executive order to enhance reader comprehension.

Source quality

The article relies on statements from involved parties such as the judge and legal representatives, which lends some credibility. However, it does not cite external sources or documents that could provide additional verification, such as the executive order itself or legal filings. The lack of diverse sources and reliance on potentially biased viewpoints from those directly involved in the case could affect the impartiality and depth of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides limited transparency regarding the basis for its claims. It does not disclose the methodology behind the reporting or potential conflicts of interest. Furthermore, it omits detailed explanations of the legal arguments and the executive order's content, which would help readers understand the basis of the claims and the broader implications.