Judge Halts Trump’s Executive Order Targeting Law Firm

A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order revoking security clearances from employees of Perkins Coie law firm, claiming the action may violate constitutional rights and due process protections.

Quick Takes

US District Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled Trump’s executive order unconstitutional, preventing enforcement against the Democratic-aligned law firm.
The order sought to strip Perkins Coie’s security clearances, ban access to government buildings, and terminate federal contracts.
Perkins Coie argued the order would cause significant financial harm and violated free speech and association rights.
The firm was targeted partly due to its past involvement with the controversial Steele dossier during the 2016 campaign.
This is the second major law firm targeted by similar executive actions, following measures against Covington & Burling.

Constitutional Concerns Block Executive Action

US District Judge Beryl A. Howell granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, preventing enforcement of an executive order that would have severely impacted Perkins Coie law firm. The order sought to revoke security clearances from the firm’s employees, bar access to government buildings, and terminate federal contracts. Judge Howell expressed serious concerns about the constitutionality of the action, questioning the extent of presidential authority in targeting a private law firm for representing political opponents.

The ruling marks a significant setback for the administration’s efforts to penalize the law firm, which has long-standing ties to Democratic causes and politicians. Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit arguing that the executive order amounted to illegal targeting based solely on their legal work and violated their free speech and association rights.

Financial Impact and Business Concerns

Attorneys for Perkins Coie argued that the executive order posed an existential threat to their firm, characterizing it as “life-threatening” to their business operations. The firm claimed it was already experiencing significant financial repercussions, with clients ending or threatening to end legal arrangements due to the uncertainty created by the order. The potential loss of security clearances would effectively prevent the firm from serving government contractors and other clients requiring such access.

Perkins Coie’s legal team presented evidence that the firm stood to lose substantial revenue, with potential client withdrawals threatening its long-term viability. The judge’s temporary restraining order offers a reprieve, though the administration retains some ability to review individual security clearances through normal processes. The ruling does not completely prevent the administration from taking action, but requires it to follow established procedures rather than implementing a blanket ban.

Political Context and Steele Dossier Connection

The executive order appears directly connected to Perkins Coie’s past involvement with the Steele dossier, a controversial opposition research document funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the 2016 presidential race. The dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, contained various allegations about Trump and his campaign’s connections to Russia, many of which were later questioned or disputed.

The administration defended the order through Chad Mizelle, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, who cited national security concerns. “If that means excluding individuals that are no longer trustworthy with the nation’s secrets, that’s a bedrock principle of our republic,” Mizelle stated. The executive order had accused Perkins Coie of undermining democratic processes and engaging in discriminatory practices, though critics viewed it as political retaliation against perceived adversaries.

Pattern of Law Firm Targeting

This case represents the second major law firm targeted by similar executive actions. Earlier this year, Trump ordered the suspension of security clearances for employees at Covington & Burling LLP, another prominent Washington firm involved in investigations against him. These actions have raised broader concerns about the use of executive power against private legal entities representing political opponents or advancing positions contrary to administration interests.

The judge’s ruling signals potential judicial limits on such actions, though the temporary nature of the restraining order means the ultimate outcome remains undetermined. Perkins Coie welcomed the ruling as an important step toward preventing the enforcement of what they characterized as a retaliatory executive order. The White House has not issued formal comment on the judge’s decision, leaving open questions about potential appeals or alternative approaches to address the administration’s stated concerns.