A federal judge ruled on Friday evening that President Trump’s March executive order targeting Perkins Coie is unconstitutional and ordered the government to abstain from enforcing the action.
U.S. District Beryl Howell blocked the order against the elite law firm, arguing the president’s measure was in breach of several provisions of the Constitution.
“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,’” Howell wrote in the 102-page order on Friday.
Trump’s March 6 order moved to bar the firm’s attorneys from accessing federal government buildings, revoke attorney security clearances and demand a review of the firm’s contracts.
The executive order is part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to punish prominent law firms that have either represented his political opponents or have ties to individuals who have participated in investigations against him. Other law firms targeted by Trump include WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey and Jenner & Block, all of which have also sued the administration.
Several firms, including Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, were targeted by Trump but cut deals with the administration to nix the orders.
Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016, sued in court less than a week after Trump’s order. Days later, Howell temporarily blocked parts of Trump’s measure, arguing the executive order was in violation of the First Amendment.
Howell’s ruling on Friday represents a win for Perkins Coie, joining a small group of law firms that have separately secured temporary restraining orders that, for now, neutralized part of the orders aimed at them.
“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, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion,’” Howell wrote in the Friday order.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
