A federal judge has temporarily blocked parts of President Trump’s executive order aimed at the law firm Perkins Coie. This order, signed on March 6, targets Perkins Coie due to its ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and its involvement in issues that the Trump administration opposes.
In a hearing held in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a temporary restraining order that halts the enforcement of the executive order. She argued that the order appears to be a punishment against Perkins Coie and likely infringes on the firm’s First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. Judge Howell emphasized that the legal system thrives when all parties have strong advocates, even those with unpopular views.
The executive order accuses Perkins Coie of "dishonest and dangerous activity." It seeks to suspend security clearances for its employees, prevent government contractors from hiring the firm, and restrict its staff from entering federal buildings. The order also discourages federal employees from interacting with Perkins Coie staff.
During the hearing, Perkins Coie had already filed a lawsuit against the government, claiming that Trump’s order is unconstitutional. The firm has stated that the executive order has negatively impacted its business, leading some clients to sever ties with them. In one instance, a federal prosecutor declined to meet with Perkins Coie’s attorneys.
The government’s argument, presented by Chad Mizelle, chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, claimed that the president has the authority to act against entities he deems untrustworthy. However, Judge Howell warned that the order could intimidate attorneys, potentially affecting their ability to advocate for clients who hold unpopular positions.
The executive order, titled "Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP," specifically cites the firm’s representation of Clinton’s campaign and its role in creating a dossier with unverified allegations regarding connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Judge Howell noted that the chilling effect of the order could have far-reaching consequences across the legal profession, warning that it may discourage lawyers from representing clients in politically sensitive cases.