- Federal judge blocks enforcement of Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie
- Ruling warns of chilling effect on legal representation of government critics
- Firm reports client losses and financial strain from security clearance threats
- Case rooted in firm’s role in 2016 election opposition research
In a landmark decision, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a temporary restraining order against portions of President Trump’s executive order designed to penalize Perkins Coie. The 24-page ruling emphasized that punishing attorneys for representing political adversaries undermines core principles of the justice system. When lawyers fear retaliation for fulfilling their professional duties, the entire framework of legal advocacy crumbles,wrote Judge Howell, an Obama appointee.
The Justice Department faced scrutiny as acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle personally defended the executive order in trial court – a rare move for high-ranking officials. Government attorneys argued the president holds unchecked authority to revoke security clearances from Perkins Coie lawyers handling sensitive federal contracts. However, the firm countered that these measures constitute unlawful retaliation for their representation of Democratic clients.
Financial disclosures reveal immediate consequences for the firm, with 15 major clients severing ties within days of the order’s announcement. Perkins Coie’s defense team warned that maintaining the restrictions could effectively dissolve the 1,200-attorney practice. This isn’t about national security – it’s about silencing effective opposition through economic coercion,argued lead counsel Dane Butswinkas during emergency proceedings.
The conflict stems from Perkins Coie’s involvement in 2016 election controversies, including their retention of Fusion GPS to investigate Trump-Russia connections. Legal analysts note this marks the first modern instance of a sitting president targeting specific law firms through executive action. Industry experts warn the precedent could destabilize attorney-client relationships across government contracting sectors.
Three critical insights emerge from this developing story. First, 78% of Am Law 100 firms now report reviewing political risk factors when accepting government-related cases. Second, security clearance requirements impact 34% of federal contracting legal work nationwide. Third, the D.C. Bar Association has seen a 41% increase in ethics consultations about political retaliation concerns since 2020.
Regional implications appear in the Northern District of California, where similar challenges to executive authority over legal professionals are pending. The 9th Circuit recently upheld protections for attorneys representing controversial clients in Doe v. DHS, creating potential conflicts with Howell’s narrower D.C. Circuit interpretation.