A federal judge on Friday struck down Donald Trump’s punitive executive order targeting law firm Perkins Coie as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s protections for free speech and due process in a setback for the Republican president’s campaign against the legal industry.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling was the first by any judge deciding the legal merits of any of the several directives Trump has aimed at law firms that have handled legal challenges to his actions, represented political adversaries or employed lawyers who have taken part in investigations of him.
Howell, based in Washington, barred federal agencies from enforcing Trump’s March 6 order against Perkins Coie. The judge had previously issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of key provisions of Trump’s directive.
The Justice Department can appeal Howell’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Perkins Coie, a 1,200-lawyer firm founded in Seattle, represented the campaign of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who Trump defeated in his first presidential run.
Trump’s executive order sought to restrict its lawyers from accessing government buildings and officials, and threatened to cancel federal contracts held by the firm’s clients. The firm sued, calling the order a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of speech and Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process – a requirement for the government to use a fair legal process.
The judge’s ruling represented the broadest rebuke yet for Trump’s pressure campaign against law firms that he has accused of “weaponizing” the justice system against him and his political allies. U.S. Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson, defending the orders in court, argued in each case that Trump was lawfully exercising his presidential power and discretion.
Three other major law firms – WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey – also sued the administration to block executive orders Trump issued against them. Other judges have temporarily blocked those orders while the cases proceed.
Nine rival firms, including Paul Weiss, Latham & Watkins, Skadden Arps and Willkie Farr, have reached deals with Trump that averted punitive actions, pledging a combined total of nearly $1 billion in free legal services to advance causes he supports.
Trump’s targeting of firms has drawn condemnation from many within the legal industry, with some also criticizing the firms that reached agreements as capitulating to presidential coercion.
Perkins Coie argued it was targeted over its work for Clinton’s campaign and the firm’s policies promoting workplace diversity and inclusion.
Trump’s order had accused Perkins Coie of “dishonest and dangerous activity.” It said Perkins Coie “racially discriminates” in its hiring – referring to the firm’s efforts diversity policies. Trump and his allies have portrayed such policies as discriminatory against white people. The order also criticized the firm’s work representing Clinton’s campaign.
Each of the firms suing the administration called the orders against them existential threats. They argued the orders limited the ability of their lawyers to practice law and sought to intimidate their clients into seeking new counsel.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Judge strikes down Trump order against law firm Perkins Coie
