Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Order, Controversy Ensues

A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie law firm, ruling the measure unconstitutional and a violation of due process protections.

Top Takeaways

US District Judge Beryl A. Howell granted a temporary restraining order against Trump’s executive order that sought to strip security clearances from Perkins Coie employees.
The executive order also aimed to ban the firm from government buildings and terminate its federal contracts.
Perkins Coie argued the order violated free speech rights and would cause significant financial damage to the firm.
The law firm has historical ties to Democratic causes and was involved in funding the controversial Steele dossier during the 2016 presidential campaign.
This is not the first instance of the Trump administration targeting law firms perceived as adversarial, with a similar order issued against Covington & Burling.

Judge Rules Order Unconstitutional

US District Judge Beryl A. Howell delivered a significant blow to the Trump administration by blocking an executive order that targeted Perkins Coie, a law firm with strong ties to Democratic causes. The order aimed to revoke security clearances for the firm’s employees, ban access to government buildings, and terminate federal contracts. Judge Howell determined the order violated constitutional protections and due process rights, expressing serious concerns about the implications of such executive actions on the legal profession.

The judge noted during the hearing that the executive order’s broad scope gave the president “extraordinary power” and admitted that it “sends little chills down my spine.” Perkins Coie’s legal team argued that the order effectively amounted to punishment without due process and represented an attempt to intimidate those who oppose the Trump administration’s policies or represent clients in opposition to the president.

Steele Dossier Connection and Political Context

The executive order appears to be directly linked to Perkins Coie’s involvement in the 2016 presidential campaign, specifically its role in funding opposition research that led to the controversial Steele dossier. The dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign through Perkins Coie, contained allegations about Trump’s connections to Russia. While some findings were corroborated by US intelligence agencies, much of the report was later discredited.

Trump has long criticized the Steele dossier as part of what he claims was a politically motivated investigation into his campaign. In 2022, he filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie, and others, though that suit was ultimately dismissed by the courts. The executive order targeting Perkins Coie described the firm as undermining democratic processes and engaging in discriminatory practices.

Financial Impact and Business Concerns

Attorneys representing Perkins Coie argued that the executive order posed an existential threat to the firm, describing the potential impact as “life-threatening” to their business. According to court documents, the firm has already experienced negative consequences with clients ending or threatening to terminate legal arrangements. Perkins Coie claimed the order would cause significant revenue loss and client withdrawal, jeopardizing its ability to operate effectively.

The temporary restraining order granted by Judge Howell provides immediate relief to the firm, but does not permanently resolve the issue. While the judge’s ruling prevents enforcement of many aspects of the executive order, reports indicate it may not prevent the administration from revoking individual security clearances of Perkins Coie attorneys under certain circumstances.

Administration Defense and Pattern of Law Firm Targeting

The Trump administration defended the executive order through Chad Mizelle, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, who cited national security concerns as justification. “If that means excluding individuals that are no longer trustworthy with the nation’s secrets, that’s a bedrock principle of our republic,” Mizelle argued. However, the White House has not issued an official comment on the judge’s ruling blocking the order.

This is not the first time the Trump administration has targeted law firms perceived as adversarial. In February, Trump ordered the suspension of security clearances for employees at Covington & Burling LLP, another law firm involved in investigations against him. Critics argue these actions represent a pattern of using executive power to punish political opponents and their legal representatives, while supporters maintain they are necessary measures to protect sensitive information.