Judge Blocks Trump’s Executive Order Targeting Democrat-Linked Law Firm Perkins Coie
A federal judge has issued a temporary halt to the Trump administration’s executive order aimed at penalizing Perkins Coie, a law firm with deep ties to the Democratic Party. U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell sided with the plaintiffs, attorneys from Perkins Coie, who argued the order was unconstitutional and violated their due process rights.
The decision came swiftly, just a day after Perkins Coie lawyers filed an emergency request for a restraining order to block the executive order from taking effect. The executive order sought to strip Perkins Coie employees of their security clearances, bar them from accessing government buildings, and terminate the firm’s existing contracts with government clients.
Judge Howell expressed strong concerns about the scope of the executive order, stating that it represented an "extraordinary power" for the president to exercise. Perkins Coie argued that the order violated due process, free speech, and free association protections under the U.S. Constitution, effectively crippling their business.
"It truly is life-threatening," Perkins Coie attorneys argued before Judge Howell. "It will spell the end of the law firm."
Judge Howell seemed to agree with these concerns, noting that the Trump administration’s move to label the firm as a threat and deny them access to government entities and businesses "sends little chills down my spine."
The attorneys representing Perkins Coie described the potential impact of the executive order as a "tsunami waiting to hit the firm." They presented evidence that some clients had already withdrawn legal work or were considering doing so, which would lead to significant revenue losses for the firm.
The executive order, signed by former President Donald Trump, targeted Perkins Coie because of its long history of representing Democratic-linked causes and candidates. This includes representing Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election and its role in hiring Fusion GPS, the research firm that commissioned the Steele Dossier shortly before the 2016 election.
Chad Mizelle, chief of staff to former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, represented the Trump administration in court. The rare court appearance by Mizelle, a senior Justice Department official, underscored the importance the Trump administration placed on the executive order.
The executive order, titled "Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP," accused the firm of "dishonest and dangerous activity" that allegedly undermined "democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement." The order also alleged that Perkins Coie racially discriminated against its own attorneys and staff through its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
Former President Trump told reporters that signing the order was an "absolute honor," adding that "weaponization" against a political opponent "should never be allowed to happen again." However, Perkins Coie argued that the Trump administration had done precisely that by targeting the firm.
In their emergency lawsuit, Perkins Coie attorneys argued that the executive order’s "plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients."
Perkins Coie attorneys told Judge Howell that approximately 25% of the firm’s total revenue comes from contracts with government clients, which would be terminated by the executive order.
This is not the first time the Trump administration has attempted to restrict the work of law firms perceived as opposed to its interests. Earlier in the year, Trump issued a similar executive order targeting Covington & Burling, the law firm representing former special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by Merrick Garland to investigate Trump’s handling of classified documents and actions related to the 2020 election.
The executive order against Covington & Burling was less restrictive, revoking the security clearances of only two lawyers at the firm. However, it also ordered a review of the firm’s government contracts and clients. It remains unclear whether that review led to any contract terminations.
The White House has not yet responded to a request for comment.
The judge’s decision to block the executive order has been hailed by legal experts as a victory for due process and the rule of law. They argue that the executive order was a clear attempt to punish a law firm for its political affiliations and the clients it represents. The case raises important questions about the limits of executive power and the protection of civil liberties. The temporary restraining order provides immediate relief to Perkins Coie, but the legal battle is far from over. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling, setting the stage for a protracted legal fight that could have significant implications for the future of executive power and the ability of law firms to represent clients without fear of political retaliation. The order from the White House came on the heels of significant press coverage of the firms work on behalf of Democratic causes, drawing scrutiny to the inner workings of their government contracts, including the services provided and their associated costs. The current debate raises concerns about the long term effects of targeting specific firms for their political leanings, potentially chilling free speech and access to legal representation.
