Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s Executive Order Targeting Law Firm, Citing Free Speech and Due Process Violations
In a significant legal setback for former President Donald Trump, a federal judge has invalidated his executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, deeming it a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s protections for free speech and due process. The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, marks the first instance of a judge deciding on the legal merits of Trump’s directives aimed at law firms that have challenged his actions, represented his political opponents, or employed lawyers involved in investigations against him.
Judge Howell, presiding in Washington, D.C., issued an order barring federal agencies from enforcing Trump’s March 6 directive against Perkins Coie. Previously, she had issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the enforcement of key provisions within Trump’s order. The Justice Department has the option to appeal Howell’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Perkins Coie, a prominent law firm with 1,200 lawyers and headquartered in Seattle, served as counsel for the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, whom Trump defeated in his initial presidential campaign.
Trump’s executive order sought to restrict Perkins Coie’s lawyers from accessing government buildings and officials and threatened to cancel federal contracts held by the firm’s clients. In response, Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit, asserting that the order violated the Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of speech and the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process. The Fifth Amendment mandates that the government employ fair legal processes.
Judge Howell’s ruling represents the most substantial rebuke to date of Trump’s pressure campaign against law firms that he has accused of "weaponizing" the justice system against him and his political allies. Richard Lawson, a U.S. Justice Department lawyer, defended the orders in court, arguing that Trump was lawfully exercising his presidential power and discretion in each case.
In addition to Perkins Coie, three other major law firms WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey also filed lawsuits against the administration to block executive orders issued against them by Trump. Other judges have temporarily blocked those orders while the cases proceed.
Notably, nine rival firms, including Paul Weiss, Latham & Watkins, Skadden Arps, and Willkie Farr, reached agreements with Trump to avert punitive actions. These firms pledged a combined total of nearly $1 billion in free legal services to advance causes supported by Trump.
Trump’s targeting of law firms has drawn widespread condemnation from within the legal industry. Some have also criticized the firms that reached agreements with Trump, accusing them of capitulating to presidential coercion.
Perkins Coie argued that it was targeted due to its work for Clinton’s campaign and its policies promoting workplace diversity and inclusion.
Trump’s order accused Perkins Coie of "dishonest and dangerous activity." It also alleged that Perkins Coie "racially discriminates" in its hiring, referring to the firm’s diversity policies. Trump and his allies have portrayed such policies as discriminatory against white people. The order also criticized the firm’s work representing Clinton’s campaign.
Each of the firms suing the administration argued that the orders against them posed existential threats. They contended that the orders limited their lawyers’ ability to practice law and sought to intimidate their clients into seeking new counsel.
The judge’s decision underscored the importance of safeguarding the independence of the legal profession and protecting law firms from government interference based on their representation of clients or their internal policies. The ruling affirms the principle that lawyers should not be penalized for providing legal services to unpopular or politically disfavored clients.
The case highlights the tension between the executive branch’s authority to manage federal contracts and the constitutional rights of individuals and organizations to free speech and due process. The judge’s decision suggests that the executive branch’s power is not unlimited and that it cannot be used to punish or intimidate those who exercise their constitutional rights.
The ruling is likely to have a significant impact on the legal industry and on the relationship between the government and law firms. It sends a clear message that the government cannot use its power to silence or punish lawyers for representing their clients or for expressing their views.
The case also raises important questions about the role of diversity and inclusion in the legal profession. Trump’s criticism of Perkins Coie’s diversity policies suggests that he views such policies as discriminatory against white people. This view is not shared by many in the legal profession, who believe that diversity and inclusion are essential to ensuring that the legal system is fair and just.
The judge’s decision is a victory for the rule of law and for the principles of free speech and due process. It is a reminder that the government must respect the constitutional rights of all individuals and organizations, even those who are unpopular or politically disfavored. The decision is likely to be appealed, and the case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. However, the judge’s ruling is a significant step in protecting the independence of the legal profession and ensuring that lawyers are free to represent their clients without fear of government reprisal.
