A federal judge determined that Trump’s executive order from March, which targeted Perkins Coie, was unconstitutional. Consequently, the government has been ordered to halt any enforcement related to this lawsuit.
US District Judge Beryl Howell blocked actions aimed at prestigious law firms, asserting that the president’s measures infringed upon various constitutional provisions.
According to Howell, the president has never before issued an executive order that faced challenges like this one. His actions against prominent law firms—those representing clients with opposing political views—seemed to echo tactics from the past, reminiscent of something out of Shakespeare.
On March 6th, Trump’s order sought to prevent Perkins Coie’s attorneys from accessing federal buildings, stripping their security clearances, and launching a review of their contracts.
This executive order is part of a larger agenda from the Trump administration to penalize influential law firms that align with his political adversaries or are linked to individuals involved in investigations against him. Other firms, such as WilmerHale and Sussman Godfrey, also found themselves in the crosshairs.
While some firms like Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Paul, Weiss worked out agreements with the administration to settle the order, Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election, was swiftly sued following Trump’s directive. Shortly thereafter, Howell blocked some of the president’s actions, stating they contradicted the First Amendment.
Howell’s ruling on Friday marked a notable win for Perkins Coie, placing it among a select group of law firms that have secured temporary restraining orders against Trump’s targeted measures.
In the judge’s view, while the federal government had previously deployed its powers to impose progressive employment policies, it now faced the necessity to respond—albeit with a tone of dissent or intolerance towards these efforts.
