The federal court on Wednesday ruled that the Trump administration could not enforce an executive order intended to punish the Democrat-linked Perkins Coie law firm. They sided with the plaintiffs who argued the order violated due process and was in violation of the constitution.
Beryl Howell, U.S. district judge in New York City, issued her ruling just a day after lawyers representing the Perkins Coie law firm applied a temporary restraining measure to prevent Trump’s Executive Order from going into effect.
The order also called on the employees of the company to lose their clearances for security and be banned from entering government buildings. The order also demanded the cancellation of existing contracts between the firm and government clients, a decision that Judge Howell seemed to support.
She said during the hearing, “That is a pretty incredible power that the President can exercise.”
Perkins Coie’s attorneys argued that the executive order violated protections of due process, freedom of speech, and free association under the U.S. Constitution and that it would force their business to stop.
Attorneys for Perkins Coie informed the Judge that “it truly is life-threatening.” It will be the end for the firm.
The judge appeared to support their concerns. He noted at one stage of the hearing that “it sends little chills up my spine,” that the Trump Administration moved to deny the firm access to businesses and government agencies.
Perkins Coie lawyers argued that the executive order could have a damaging effect on the firm. They said that there was evidence to suggest some clients of their firm have already withdrawn or plan to withdraw legal work. This would result in a “significant revenue loss” for the firm.
Last week, President Donald Trump signed an order that sought to punish Perkins Coie for its long-standing representation of Democratic causes and candidates, including Hillary Clinton’s 2016 opponent, Trump.
It also had a hand in the hiring of Fusion GPS, a research company that was hired by the opposition to produce the “Steele Dossier”, which appeared shortly before the election.
Chad Mizelle is the chief of staff for U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. He appeared before federal courts in order to represent Trump’s administration. Mizelle is a U.S. Attorney General’s Office senior official who makes a rare appearance in court. The hearing comes ONE WEEK after Trump has signed his executive order.
In the order titled, “Addressing risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” they accused Perkins Coie LLP of engaging in “dishonest and harmful activity,” which undermined “democratic election, integrity of our court, and honest police enforcement” as well as discriminating racially against their own lawyers and staff through DEI programs.
Trump said to reporters that signing the order was “absolutely an honor”. He added that it “shouldn’t happen again” for a politician to be “weaponized” in this way.
Perkins Coie lawyers argue that the Trump administration is targeting them.
The emergency lawsuit stated that “its plain purpose” is to intimidate those who express views the president perceives to be contrary to his Administration’s views, regardless of whether they are presenting those views on behalf of paid or pro bono customers.
The attorneys representing Perkins Coie informed Howell that approximately 25% of the firm’s revenue is derived from contracts with clients in government, and they pointed out that Trump’s order would terminate these contracts.
This isn’t the first time that the Trump Administration has tried to limit the work of law firms it believes could be in opposition to its interests.
Trump issued an executive directive earlier this year targeting Covington & Burling. The law firm represents Jack Smith, a former special prosecutor who, in 2022, was appointed by Merrick Garlin to probe Trump’s handling of classified materials and his actions related to the 2020 elections.
Covington & Burling’s order was less strict but still revoked security clearances for only two of the lawyers. It ordered the review of government contracts with the firm and its clients. However, unlike Perkins Coie, it’s unclear whether the review forced the termination of any contracts.
The White House didn’t immediately reply to an inquiry for comment.
