- Perkins Coie files lawsuit against Trump’s March 2025 executive order
- Order revokes security clearances, bans government contracts for the firm
- Alleges constitutional violations of free speech and due process
- Targets work tied to 2016 Clinton campaign and Steele dossier
- Former firm attorneys no longer employed there still cited in order
The prominent law firm Perkins Coie has launched a constitutional challenge against an executive order signed by former President Donald Trump that directly targets its operations. Filed in Washington D.C. federal court, the lawsuit argues the March 6, 2025 directive represents retaliation against attorneys representing clients opposed to Trump’s political agenda.
Legal analysts note this case tests executive power boundaries, with Columbia Law professor Sarah Kreps stating, “We’re seeing unprecedented use of contracting authority to punish perceived adversaries. This could destabilize attorney-client relationships nationwide.” The order impacts 137 active government contracts worth $42 million annually through Perkins Coie’s regulatory practice group.
A regional parallel emerges from California’s 2022 Tech Workers Union v. DHS case, where courts blocked similar contractor blacklisting attempts. However, Trump’s order uniquely combines security clearance revocations with physical access restrictions to federal buildings - a move the American Bar Association calls “a dangerous escalation in executive overreach.”
The case highlights growing tensions between national security protocols and legal ethics. Over 63% of top 100 firms now handle sensitive government matters requiring clearances. “This isn’t just about one firm,” notes former DOJ official Michael Bahar. “It jeopardizes the entire system of federal legal representation.”
Court documents reveal the administration specifically cited Perkins Coie’s 2016 election work, including commissioning the Steele dossier through then-partner Marc Elias. Though the FBI ultimately discredited the dossier’s salacious claims, the firm maintains its actions followed standard opposition research practices. The lawsuit notes neither Elias nor other named attorneys have been with the firm since 2021.
With oral arguments scheduled for September, constitutional scholars warn of cascading effects. A ruling favoring the administration could empower future presidents to weaponize contracting processes against disfavored professions. Conversely, a firm victory might reinforce checks on executive authority - potentially influencing pending legislation like the Federal Contractor Accountability Act.