Belarus Frees 123 Political Prisoners in U.S.-Brokered Deal Over Sanctions 
Tunisia Protests Grow as Opposition Unites Against President Kais Saied’s Rule 
Azul Airlines Wins Court Approval for $2 Billion Debt Restructuring and New Capital Raise 
Ukraine’s NATO Concession Unlikely to Shift Peace Talks, Experts Say 
U.S. Lifts Sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Amid Shift in Brazil Relations 
Belarus Pledges to Halt Smuggling Balloons Into Lithuania 
Special Prosecutor Alleges Yoon Suk Yeol Sought North Korea Provocation to Justify Martial Law 
U.S. State Department Reverts to Times New Roman in Push for “Professionalism” 
Trump Administration Fuel-Efficiency Rollback Could Raise Long-Term Costs for U.S. Drivers 
Bolivia Orders Pre-Trial Detention of Former President Luis Arce Over Embezzlement Probe 
U.S. Greenlights Nvidia H200 Chip Exports to China With 25% Fee 
Federal Judge Orders Restoration of SEVIS Status for Tufts PhD Student Rumeysa Ozturk 
Supreme Court to Weigh Trump’s Power to Remove FTC Commissioner 
International Stabilization Force for Gaza Nears Deployment as U.S.-Led Planning Advances 
Trump Signals Two Final Candidates for Fed Chair, Calls for Presidential Input on Interest Rates 
U.S. Soldiers Killed in ISIS Attack in Palmyra, Syria During Counterterrorism Mission 
EU Court Cuts Intel Antitrust Fine to €237 Million Amid Long-Running AMD Dispute 
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.
