A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order seeking to penalize Democrat-linked law firm Perkins Coie, siding with plaintiffs from the firm who argued that the order was unconstitutional and a violation of due process protections.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell comes just one day after attorneys representing the law firm Perkins Coie filed a request for an emergency restraining order blocking Trump’s executive order from taking force.
Among other things, the order called for the firm’s employees to be stripped of their security clearances and banned from accessing government buildings. It also called for the termination of the firm’s existing contracts with government clients— actions Judge Howell appeared to agree with.
‘That’s pretty extraordinary power for the president to exercise,’ she noted during the hearing.
Attorneys for Perkins Coie argued that the executive order is a violation of due process protections, free speech, and free association protections under the U.S. constitution, and argued it would effectively force the firm’s business to a halt.
‘It truly is life-threatening,’ attorneys for Perkins Coie told the judge. ‘It will spell the end of the law firm.’
Judge Howell appeared to uphold their concerns, noting at one point in the hearing that it ‘sends little chills down my spine’ that the Trump administration moved to label the firm as a threat and deny them access to government entities and businesses.
Lawyers for Perkins Coie argued the executive order would be ‘like a tsunami waiting to hit the firm’ in terms of damaging impact. Already, they said, there is evidence that some of the firm’s clients have withdrawn legal work from their firm or are considering doing so, moves they said would cause the firm to lose ‘signifcant revenue.’
The order, signed by President Donald Trump last week, sought to penalize Perkins Coie, which has long represented Democratic-linked causes and candidates, including Trump’s former opponent, Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 presidential election.
The firm also played a role in hiring Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm that commissioned the so-called ‘Steele Dossier’ and published it shortly before the 2016 election.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, appeared in federal court to represent the Trump administration in the lawsuit. The hearing, and rare court appearance from Mizelle, a senior member of the U.S. attorney general’s office, comes one week after Trump signed the executive order.
The order, titled ‘Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,’ accused Perkins Coie of ‘dishonest and dangerous activity’ that they alleged undermines ‘democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement,’ as well as ‘racially discriminating against its own attorneys and staff’ through its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.
Trump told reporters last week it was an ‘absolute honor’ to sign the order, adding that ‘weaponization’ against a political opponent ‘should never be allowed to happen again.’
However, Perkins Coie attorneys argue the Trump administration has done just that by targeting the firm.
‘Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients,’ they noted in the emergency lawsuit.
Attorneys representing Perkins Coie told Howell that roughly 25% of total firm revenue comes from its contracts with government clients, which they noted would be terminated by Trump’s executive order.
Notably, this is not the first time the Trump administration has sought to restrict the work of certain law firms he sees as potentially opposed to his interests.
Earlier this year, Trump also issued an executive order targeting the law firm Covington & Burling, which represents former special counsel Jack Smith, who was tapped by Merrick Garland in 2022 to investigate Trump in his handling of classified documents and actions related to the 2020 election.
The order against Covington & Burling was slightly less restrictive, however, and revoked the security clearances of just two lawyers at the firm. Like Perkins Coie, it orderd the review of all the firm’s government contracts and clients, though it is unclear if the review has forced any terminations of the contracts.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.