WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie in a blistering opinion calling the president’s efforts “an unprecedented attack” on the U.S. judicial system.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of any part of Trump’s order from March, which focused on the firm’s representation of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and its work with billionaire donor George Soros.
“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.
“The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era,” Howell wrote, referencing John Adams’ decision to represent eight British soldiers charged with murder in connection with the Boston Massacre.
She said Trump’s order “violates the Constitution and is thus null and void.”
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday night.
Trump’s executive order limited Perkins Coie employees’ access to government buildings, revoked security clearances at the firm, and ordered the heads of all federal agencies to terminate contracts with the firm and refrain from hiring employees who worked there.
Follow live politics coverage here
Howell had grilled Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson at a hearing over the measure last week, and Lawson was unable to answer basic questions about the other firms that had reached deals with the White House to avoid their own executive orders.
Howell also used a footnote in Friday’s order to criticize firms that took deals with the White House, writing that “some clients may harbor reservations about the implications of such deals for the vigorous and zealous representation to which they are entitled from ethically responsible counsel, since at least the publicized deal terms appear only to forestall, rather than eliminate, the threat of being targeted in an Executive Order.”
Trump’s “multi-year history of lodging public attacks” on Perkins Coie and “his promises during the 2024 campaign to act on his displeasure” toward the firm if he won further demonstrates that the executive order “was issued to seek retribution against plaintiff for the Firm’s representation of clients in political campaigns or litigation, about which President Trump expressed disapproval, dating back to 2017,” Howell wrote.
“This purpose amounts to no more than unconstitutional retaliation for plaintiff’s First Amendment protected activity,” Howell wrote.
