A United States federal court recently struck down an order by President Donald Trump that targeted law firm Perkins Coie LLP for its past legal work and political ties..Judge Beryl A Howell termed the order a “cringe-worthy” and unconstitutional attempt to punish the firm for speaking freely and representing clients the government did not like.“EO 14230 (Executive order) takes the approach of ‘Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,’ sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else,” Judge Howell observed, referencing Shakespeare’s Henry VI to frame the implications of the executive action."Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution.".The Perkins Coie controversy stems from allegations dating back nearly a decade ago, when lawyers from the firm represented Democratic Party clients during the 2016 election. The firm became entangled in investigations related to the Trump-Russia probe, with certain partners accused of providing misleading information to federal authorities. Though these allegations were directed at specific attorneys rather than the entire firm, the executive order imposes sweeping sanctions on Perkins Coie as a whole. The order would revoke security clearances for the firm's attorneys, potentially terminate government contracts and deny the firm and its lawyers access to federal buildings..In April 2025, over 500 United States law firms filed an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie's legal challenge against the Donald Trump administration’s March 6 executive order targeting the firm.The Court meticulously documented President Trump's nearly decade-long history of public statements criticising Perkins Coie and its former attorneys, dating back to 2017. These included social media posts accusing the firm of involvement in "the Fake Dossier Hoax" and promising that "they will be brought to JUSTICE" if he was elected.Judge Howell found that the executive order explicitly targeted Perkins Coie for its past representation of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, its involvement in election litigation and its representation of transgender military members in a recent lawsuit challenging the administration's military service ban."EO 14230, the accompanying fact sheet, and the context surrounding the Order's issuance each express President Trump's disapproval of plaintiff's First Amendment activity and demonstrate that EO 14230 targeted plaintiff because the Firm expressed support for employment policies the President does not like, represented clients the President does not like, represented clients seeking litigation results the President does not like, and represented clients challenging some of the President's actions, which he also does not like," the verdict stated..The opinion described the severe impacts of the order on Perkins Coie during the brief period between its issuance and the temporary restraining order. One client who had used the firm for seven years ended its relationship "within hours" of the order's release. Another client that had used the firm for 35 years immediately reassigned matters to other counsel.Federal agencies also began implementing the order immediately, the judge noted. The day after it was issued, a federal official refused to allow Perkins Coie attorneys to attend a scheduled meeting to discuss a pending matter, and a Department of Justice attorney canceled a previously scheduled meeting with firm attorneys.The Court noted that the Perkins Coie order was part of a pattern, with similar actions taken against other law firms including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, which later negotiated a deal with the White House that included a commitment to provide "$40 million in pro bono legal services.".According to media reports, as of early May 2025, several prominent US law firms have entered into agreements with the Trump administration to avoid punitive executive orders. These deals typically involve commitments to provide substantial pro bono legal services and, in some cases, to adjust or eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The firms reported to have reached such agreements include:Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLPSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLPWillkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Milbank LLPLatham & Watkins LLPSimpson Thacher & Bartlett LLPA&O ShearmanCadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.Ultimately, the Court found the executive order violated multiple constitutional provisions, including:First Amendment protections against retaliation for protected speech.Equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.Due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.Clients' right to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments..Judge Howell granted Perkins Coie’s request for a permanent injunction, preventing the government from implementing any part of the executive order. She also rejected the government’s motions to dismiss the case, stating that the administration’s defenses were legally insufficient and unsupported by facts.Speaking of the importance of an independent legal profession in a democracy, the judgment stated, “Lawyers are essential to the fair and impartial administration of justice...when lawyers are afraid to represent certain clients for fear of government retaliation, the rule of law itself is at risk.”.[Read Judgment]
