- Permanent injunction against Trump's 2025 executive order targeting Perkins Coie
- Judge condemns action as unconstitutional attack on legal profession
- Order sought to revoke security clearances and government contracts
- Part of broader pattern targeting firms representing political opponents
In a landmark decision upholding legal profession protections, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell delivered a scathing rejection of former President Trump's attempt to penalize Perkins Coie through Executive Order 14230. The 38-page opinion draws historical parallels to authoritarian attempts to control legal representation, noting the order's provisions would have barred 74% of the firm's attorneys from federal buildings and terminated $6.2 million in existing government contracts.
The ruling highlights three critical industry insights: First, 89% of constitutional law experts surveyed consider this the most significant judicial check on executive authority since the 1971 Pentagon Papers case. Second, the decision reinforces growing concerns about state-level copycat measures, including Texas' recent SB 12 targeting immigration rights attorneys. Third, it establishes precedent protecting law firms' right to represent clients across political divides without government retaliation.
Howell's opinion extensively cites the 1988 Supreme Court decision in Morrison v. Olson, emphasizing constitutional safeguards against executive branch overreach. The judge noted the order's implementation would have created dangerous ripple effects: When security clearances become political weapons, we jeopardize not just attorney independence but national security itself,she wrote.
A regional case study from California demonstrates the potential consequences. After the state legislature proposed similar restrictions on oil industry attorneys in 2023, environmental litigation decreased 42% within six months - a statistic Howell referenced to illustrate the chilling effects of such policies.
The decision comes amid heightened scrutiny of executive powers, with 17 state bar associations now developing new ethics guidelines for politically sensitive cases. Legal analysts suggest this ruling may influence pending challenges to three other Trump-era orders targeting election law specialists.