Executive Order 14263: Addressing Risks From Susman Godfrey

President: Donald J. Trump

Directed clearance suspension, contract review, access restrictions and employment measures aimed at Susman Godfrey; the firm sued.

Status: Blocked by courts.

Is Executive Order 14263 still in effect? No. In Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 27, 2025 declared the entire order unconstitutional and permanently blocked its implementation, including the clearance suspensions, contracting restrictions, and personnel restrictions against Susman Godfrey. The government appealed in No. 25-5310; the D.C. Circuit heard consolidated argument on May 14, 2026. No later appellate disposition was located in the court records checked on October 11, 2026.

A warning shield, magnifying glass, scales and policy papers appear before office and government buildings.
The Susman Godfrey order's contested restrictions, illustrated symbolically; the warning icon is not evidence of wrongdoing or a current legal finding. EO Explained · site-generated editorial illustration · not documentary evidence.

What does Executive Order 14263 do?

Agencies were assigned firm-specific reviews; the challenged restrictions were subject to a court injunction and further proceedings.

Later primary evidence reviewed September 24, 2026: A federal district court declared EO 14263 unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. Later appellate proceedings require separate review. Official source. The cited steps do not establish every downstream effect.

Administration position: The order’s evaluative language and policy rationale are administration positions. This guide distinguishes them from official acts, reports and judgments.

Reading the operative provisions of Executive Order 14263

EO 14263 directed agencies to review Susman Godfrey’s clearances, contracts and access to federal facilities and included employment-related restrictions. The order identifies the administration’s asserted rationale in the Federal Register text. Clearance, procurement and access decisions involve different standards, so the order’s broad directive would have required separate actions by the relevant agencies. The firm challenged the measures, and courts blocked their operative provisions.

A firm-specific restriction can raise constitutional questions about retaliation for advocacy, freedom of association and fair procedures, alongside questions about the agency’s statutory authority. Whether an order’s stated rationale is supported must be assessed from the evidence and the court record, not assumed from the order’s recital. A preliminary injunction can prevent enforcement while litigation continues; it does not necessarily resolve every issue for every third party. The scope of the court’s order matters.

Because EO 14263 is blocked, it should not be cited as current authority for new restrictions on the firm. Agencies may still enforce neutral security and contracting rules that apply generally, but would need an independent basis and ordinary procedures. A clearance review does not automatically establish wrongdoing, and a contract review does not by itself show that an award was terminated. The record of actual agency decisions and court orders is necessary to describe what happened.

SignedApril 9, 2025
Lead officialsAttorney General, OMB and agency heads
Express timingImmediate

Before and after

Before the order

General federal clearance, procurement and access rules applied without a firm-specific presidential sanction.

After the order

A D.C. district court permanently enjoined the challenged provisions in June 2025 after finding constitutional violations; enforcement remains governed by that judgment and any appeal.

A federal district court declared EO 14263 unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. Later appellate proceedings require separate review.

Who had to do what

Agency / officeActionTiming / position
Agency headsApply firm-specific reviews and restrictionsBlocked by injunction
Justice DepartmentHandle litigation and any appealAs docketed

What happened next

EO 14263 signed.

District court entered final judgment and permanent relief.

Later primary evidence reviewed: A federal district court declared EO 14263 unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. Later appellate proceedings require separate review.

Reviewed court position

Court status

See the court documents in Sources by type.