A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked President Trump’s attempt to retaliate against a law firm that represented Hillary Clinton, ruling that an executive order the president signed last week unlawfully targeted the Perkins Coie law firm and violated its First Amendment rights.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a temporary restraining order that stops three parts of the executive order from being implemented against Perkins Coie — provisions that ban the firm’s attorneys from entering government buildings, that restrict contact between federal officials and the firm’s attorneys and that subject the firm’s contracts with federal contractors to review by Trump administration agency heads.
Dane Butswinkas, an attorney representing Perkins Coie, argued in court that the executive order is a “wrecking ball” and a “tidal wave” that would significantly damage the firm’s ability to do work in Washington, D.C., in cases involving the federal government. Attorneys say there are thousands of ongoing cases related to over 90 government agencies. Butswinkas said that about 25% of the firm’s work is related to government work.
Perkins Coie sued the Trump administration this week, arguing that the executive order violated the firm’s constitutional protections of free speech and association. The firm represented Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign against Mr. Trump, and in the course of the campaign, contracted with a research firm that produced the infamous “Steele Dossier.” The controversial dossier contained salacious and unproven allegations highlighting alleged links between Russia, Mr. Trump and his associates.
Butswinkas also argued that the executive order would have a chilling effect in law firms across Washington, hampering their abilities to assist clients without fear of retaliation for litigating against the president or his administration.
In an unusual move, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, argued on behalf of the Justice Department.
Mizelle argued that Trump has the executive power to “find that there are certain individuals or certain companies that are not trustworthy with the nation’s secrets,” and that Trump’s decisions to go after the law firm are “not reviewable” by a court of law.
“That’s a different Constitution than I am familiar with,” Butswinkas retorted in his closing, adding, “If left unchecked, we’ll be left in a country we barely recognize.”
Howell criticized the Trump administration’s actions in her ruling from the bench, saying that it “sends little chills down my spine” that the Trump administration claimed it has the executive power to label people as threats and bar them from engaging with the government. She noted that many of the lawyers who worked on the Trump-related cases have since departed the firm, and the language was overly broad in targeting the firm.
The executive order also stripped the security clearances of attorneys at Perkins Coie, but the law firm did not challenge that section in its suit.
Perkins Coie is just one law firm that the Trump administration has targeted so far during his presidency. Last month, Mr. Trump signed another executive order that targeted Covington & Burling attorneys representing former special counsel Jack Smith, the federal prosecutor who brought criminal charges against Mr. Trump in a case involving his handling of classified documents and another regarding his actions in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
In an interview that aired Sunday on Fox News, Trump mentioned Perkins Coie, saying his administration has “a lot of law firms that we’re going to go after because they were very dishonest people.”
The firms, he said, are “so bad for our country.”
