# Justice Department Seeks Disqualification of Judge in Perkins Coie Case, Citing Bias
**WASHINGTON** – In a significant escalation of the Trump administration's ongoing conflict with the judiciary, the Justice Department on Friday filed a motion seeking the disqualification of Judge Beryl Howell from presiding over a case involving an executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie. The motion accuses Judge Howell of bias and questions her impartiality, arguing that "reasonable observers may well view this Court as insufficiently impartial to adjudicate the meritless challenges to President Trump’s efforts to implement the agenda that the American people elected him to carry out."
The move comes after Judge Howell, a judge for the D.C. federal district, issued a temporary halt on March 12 to several restrictions imposed by Trump's March 6 executive order. This order specifically targeted Perkins Coie, a law firm that represented Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign. The executive order directed federal agencies to terminate contracts with Perkins Coie and to halt security clearances for its employees.
Judge Howell's initial ruling included a comment expressing concern for the firm, stating, "I am sure many in the legal profession are watching in horror about what Perkins Coie is going through here," during the March 12 hearing. This statement, among others, has been cited by the Justice Department as evidence of her alleged bias.
The Justice Department's motion details the argument that Judge Howell has repeatedly demonstrated animus towards Trump, pointing to her past actions and rulings as evidence. A key element of their argument is the assertion that Howell has aided the "improper efforts of disgraced former prosecutor Jack Smith." Smith previously led two prosecutions against Trump, although those charges were ultimately dropped after Trump won the 2024 presidential election. The Justice Department's motion characterizes Smith as "disgraced," further emphasizing their contention that Judge Howell has been actively working against the administration.
This legal maneuver is the latest in a series of escalating attacks by Trump and his political allies against judges who have questioned the legality of his executive actions and policies. Leading Republicans have joined in this criticism, creating a growing tension between the executive and judicial branches of government.
The conflict has reached a fever pitch in recent days. On Tuesday, Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who ruled against him in another case, posting his demand on his social media platform, Truth Social. This call for impeachment drew a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose," Roberts stated, defending the independence of the judiciary and emphasizing the established legal channels for addressing disagreements with judicial rulings.
However, Trump refused to back down from his stance. In an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham later on Tuesday, he doubled down on his criticism of the judiciary, stating, "We have very bad judges, and these are judges that shouldn't be allowed. I think at a certain point you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge."
Trump continued his barrage of attacks on judges on Thursday, again using his Truth Social platform to assail those handling cases related to his administration. "If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!" he wrote, further escalating the pressure on the judicial branch.
The Justice Department's motion to disqualify Judge Howell highlights the administration's increasing willingness to challenge the impartiality and legitimacy of the courts. It reflects a broader strategy of questioning the authority of institutions perceived as being critical of the administration's policies. The request for disqualification adds a new layer of complexity to the case involving Perkins Coie, and its outcome could have significant implications for the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.
Legal experts are divided on the merits of the Justice Department's motion. Some argue that Judge Howell's comments and past actions could create a perception of bias, justifying her disqualification. Others maintain that the motion is a politically motivated attempt to undermine the court and avoid judicial scrutiny of the administration's actions.
The case is being closely watched by legal professionals and political observers alike, as it underscores the growing tensions between the executive and judicial branches and raises fundamental questions about the role of the courts in a democratic society. The outcome of the Justice Department's motion could set a precedent for future challenges to judicial impartiality and further politicize the judicial process.
The broader implications of this case extend beyond the specific legal challenge to the executive order targeting Perkins Coie. It underscores the fragility of the relationship between the branches of government and the importance of maintaining judicial independence in the face of political pressure. The repeated attacks on judges by the administration and its allies raise concerns about the erosion of respect for the rule of law and the potential for a constitutional crisis.
The future of the Perkins Coie case, and the wider conflict between the Trump administration and the judiciary, remains uncertain. The Justice Department's motion to disqualify Judge Howell is a significant step, but it is only one battle in a larger war over the balance of power and the role of the courts in American society. The resolution of this conflict will have profound implications for the future of American democracy. Contributing: Reuters.
