A significant legal decision has emerged from the U.S. District Court, where Judge Beryl Howell ruled against former President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at the law firm Perkins Coie. This order was the first step to end all federal contracts with the company. It further prohibited any federal employees from communicating with Perkins Coie’s lawyers, in practical effect blocking them from accessing any federal building, even courthouses.
Judge Howell’s ruling, which spans 102 pages, denounced nearly every aspect of Trump’s order, declaring it both unconstitutional and unlawful. Her ruling came after her court entered a temporary restraining order. This extraordinary order therefore prevented the executive order from going into effect after a full hearing on the merits in federal district court in Washington D.C.
Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, was criticized heavily. Violent threats and intimidation tactics immediately followed as it became the first legal entity to be specifically targeted by Trump’s administration. Howell’s decision highlighted the unprecedented nature of such executive actions, stating, “No American president has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue.”
Trump’s executive order was meant to sever connections with Perkins Coie. It wanted to prevent federal employees from consulting with attorneys connected to the firm, creating a dangerous precedent. This action has drawn lawyers’ and Congress members’ objection on the grounds of unconstitutional denial of rights and disruption of free association.
In her ruling, Judge Howell characterized Trump’s actions as “unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.” Her critique may have underscored the risks of allowing such orders to stand unchallenged. This would threaten the autonomy of the legal profession and the foundations of any just society.
The ruling has generated controversy and speculation. Most think that the Trump administration will appeal this to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This case is about so much more than Perkins Coie. At the very least, it would provide a useful precedent for other judges hearing similar cases brought by the government against law firms.
Following the ruling, Perkins Coie unhesitatingly reached out to Quinn Emanuel to take over their representation. This law firm is famous for winning jury trials in high profile cases and has deep connections to Trump’s orbit. Quinn Emanuel declined to take Perkins Coie as a client because of the situation’s politically sensitive nature. This decision is even more surprising in light of that firm’s previous work for high-profile clients like Elon Musk and those associated with Trump.
As you can imagine, the legal community has been watching this case closely. It could create an important precedent in addressing future cases brought against similar executive orders. Perkins Coie’s experience provides a useful roadmap for other law firms facing similar government overreach. This newfound wisdom might help to inform judges’ responses across the country.