Judge halts major components of Trump's effort to sanction law firm with Democratic ties
The executive order, if implemented, would significantly restrict the company's capacity to represent clients engaged in business with the federal government.
TroibNews 
A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that President Donald Trump's retaliation against a notable law firm associated with the Democratic Party is likely unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued an injunction preventing the Trump administration from enforcing key provisions of an executive order aimed at penalizing the law firm, Perkins Coie, by prohibiting its attorneys from engaging with federal agencies or even accessing federal buildings.
Howell highlighted that the “retaliatory animus” evident in Trump’s order is “clear on its face” and seems to breach constitutional limitations on “viewpoint discrimination.” She concluded that the executive order, issued by Trump last week, “runs head on into the wall of First Amendment protections.”
Perkins Coie, located in Seattle, has frequently represented Democratic politicians and initiatives, including Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Trump has consistently targeted the firm as a political and legal opponent due to its involvement in commissioning the anti-Trump dossier created by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele in 2016. This dossier, which contained unconfirmed allegations against Trump, contributed to the prolonged investigation into his campaign's connections with Russia.
Should the executive order be permitted to be enacted, it would significantly hinder the firm's capacity to represent clients with federal government interactions. The firm claims that the directive has already driven clients away and is expected to lead federal officials to cancel or deny meetings regarding various pending issues.
Howell emphasized that the order would adversely affect not just the firm's 1,200 attorneys—most of whom were uninvolved in the Russia probe—but also its 2,500 non-lawyer staff members, including IT personnel and secretaries.
She further noted that Trump’s order was flawed due to its issuance without prior notice to the firm or due process for challenging his assessment.
“This may be amusing in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ where the Queen of Hearts yells, ‘Off with their heads!’ at annoying subjects … and announces a sentence before a verdict,” Howell remarked, adding, “but this cannot be the reality we are living under.”
The order also revoked security clearances for the firm’s lawyers; however, the firm has not contested that aspect. According to Supreme Court precedent, the president holds broad authority to grant or rescind security clearances.
Dane Butswinkas, an attorney for Perkins Coie, characterized the president’s order as “like a tsunami waiting to hit the firm,” warning that it is “truly life-threatening” and could lead to the collapse of the law firm.
Judge Howell's ruling serves as a temporary restraining order, blocking significant provisions of the executive order while litigation proceeds. At an emergency hearing on Wednesday, Howell expressed serious concerns that Trump’s order could intimidate other law firms, deterring them from representing clients or causes that conflict with the administration.
“I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here,” noted Howell, an appointee of President Barack Obama. “The order casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportions across the legal profession.”
The hearing featured an unusual presentation from Chad Mizelle, the Justice Department’s chief of staff and acting third-in-command, who defended Trump’s order. Mizelle stated that Trump possesses significant authority under the Constitution to identify specific individuals or organizations as threats to government interests.
“The president of the United States … is authorized under the Constitution to find certain individuals and certain companies are not trustworthy with the nations’ secrets,” Mizelle stated.
Mizelle argued that Perkins Coie was raising concerns about potential repercussions that had yet to materialize and might never happen as agencies interpret Trump’s order.
“What they’re complaining about is a series of bogeymen,” he asserted. “None of those ghosts are real. The bogeymen are not real.”
Howell's ruling represents the first legal challenge to Trump regarding his recent orders targeting law firms deemed hostile to his administration. In a previous move, Trump revoked security clearances for attorneys at the prominent firm Covington & Burling after discovering that several of its lawyers agreed to represent former special counsel Jack Smith, who brought criminal charges against Trump.
Since beginning his second term in January, Trump has also rescinded security clearances from numerous former officials, including President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and over 50 former intelligence officials who had signed a letter asserting that claims regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop exhibited signs of a Russian disinformation operation.
Sophie Wagner for TROIB News
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued an injunction preventing the Trump administration from enforcing key provisions of an executive order aimed at penalizing the law firm, Perkins Coie, by prohibiting its attorneys from engaging with federal agencies or even accessing federal buildings.
Howell highlighted that the “retaliatory animus” evident in Trump’s order is “clear on its face” and seems to breach constitutional limitations on “viewpoint discrimination.” She concluded that the executive order, issued by Trump last week, “runs head on into the wall of First Amendment protections.”
Perkins Coie, located in Seattle, has frequently represented Democratic politicians and initiatives, including Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Trump has consistently targeted the firm as a political and legal opponent due to its involvement in commissioning the anti-Trump dossier created by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele in 2016. This dossier, which contained unconfirmed allegations against Trump, contributed to the prolonged investigation into his campaign's connections with Russia.
Should the executive order be permitted to be enacted, it would significantly hinder the firm's capacity to represent clients with federal government interactions. The firm claims that the directive has already driven clients away and is expected to lead federal officials to cancel or deny meetings regarding various pending issues.
Howell emphasized that the order would adversely affect not just the firm's 1,200 attorneys—most of whom were uninvolved in the Russia probe—but also its 2,500 non-lawyer staff members, including IT personnel and secretaries.
She further noted that Trump’s order was flawed due to its issuance without prior notice to the firm or due process for challenging his assessment.
“This may be amusing in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ where the Queen of Hearts yells, ‘Off with their heads!’ at annoying subjects … and announces a sentence before a verdict,” Howell remarked, adding, “but this cannot be the reality we are living under.”
The order also revoked security clearances for the firm’s lawyers; however, the firm has not contested that aspect. According to Supreme Court precedent, the president holds broad authority to grant or rescind security clearances.
Dane Butswinkas, an attorney for Perkins Coie, characterized the president’s order as “like a tsunami waiting to hit the firm,” warning that it is “truly life-threatening” and could lead to the collapse of the law firm.
Judge Howell's ruling serves as a temporary restraining order, blocking significant provisions of the executive order while litigation proceeds. At an emergency hearing on Wednesday, Howell expressed serious concerns that Trump’s order could intimidate other law firms, deterring them from representing clients or causes that conflict with the administration.
“I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here,” noted Howell, an appointee of President Barack Obama. “The order casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportions across the legal profession.”
The hearing featured an unusual presentation from Chad Mizelle, the Justice Department’s chief of staff and acting third-in-command, who defended Trump’s order. Mizelle stated that Trump possesses significant authority under the Constitution to identify specific individuals or organizations as threats to government interests.
“The president of the United States … is authorized under the Constitution to find certain individuals and certain companies are not trustworthy with the nations’ secrets,” Mizelle stated.
Mizelle argued that Perkins Coie was raising concerns about potential repercussions that had yet to materialize and might never happen as agencies interpret Trump’s order.
“What they’re complaining about is a series of bogeymen,” he asserted. “None of those ghosts are real. The bogeymen are not real.”
Howell's ruling represents the first legal challenge to Trump regarding his recent orders targeting law firms deemed hostile to his administration. In a previous move, Trump revoked security clearances for attorneys at the prominent firm Covington & Burling after discovering that several of its lawyers agreed to represent former special counsel Jack Smith, who brought criminal charges against Trump.
Since beginning his second term in January, Trump has also rescinded security clearances from numerous former officials, including President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and over 50 former intelligence officials who had signed a letter asserting that claims regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop exhibited signs of a Russian disinformation operation.
Sophie Wagner for TROIB News
