Judge Blocks Trump’s Move, Creates Significant Setback for Administration

A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order that would strip security clearances from the Democratic-aligned law firm Perkins Coie, marking a significant setback to the administration’s attempts to penalize the firm for its past work.

Key Insights

US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie was likely unconstitutional and violated due process protections.
The order sought to penalize the firm by revoking security clearances, banning access to government buildings, and terminating government contracts.
Perkins Coie gained prominence for its connection to the controversial Steele dossier during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The law firm argued that the executive order has already caused significant financial damage, with clients ending or threatening to end legal arrangements.

Judge Halts “Extraordinary” Executive Order

US District Judge Beryl Howell issued a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie, a law firm with strong Democratic ties. The judge expressed serious concerns about the constitutionality of the order, which threatened to revoke security clearances for the firm’s employees, ban access to government buildings, and terminate all government contracts with the prominent Washington law firm.

During the hearing, Perkins Coie attorneys argued that the executive order posed an existential threat to their business. The firm claimed it was already experiencing significant financial impacts with clients withdrawing or threatening to end their legal arrangements, potentially leading to devastating revenue losses.

Disputed Steele Dossier Connection

The executive order signed by President Trump explicitly accused Perkins Coie of undermining democratic processes and engaging in discriminatory practices. The administration’s focus on Perkins Coie stems from the firm’s controversial role in the 2016 presidential campaign, when it facilitated Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign funding for opposition research that led to the creation of the Steele dossier.

The Steele dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, contained allegations of ties between Trump and Russia. While some findings were later corroborated by US intelligence and the Mueller investigation, much of the dossier has been discredited over time. Trump has consistently maintained that the document was part of a politically motivated effort to undermine his candidacy and presidency.

Constitutional Concerns

Judge Howell’s ruling emphasized concerns that the executive order violated free speech and association rights protected by the Constitution. The judge warned about the dangers of an administration using executive power to punish lawyers for representing clients or views unfavorable to the current government, saying such actions threatened the foundation of the American legal system.

The Trump administration, through Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff Chad Mizelle, defended the order by citing 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 argued. However, the restraining order granted by Judge Howell effectively prevents the administration from implementing the executive order while legal challenges proceed.

Pattern of Legal Firm Targeting

This is not the first instance of the Trump administration taking action against law firms perceived as adversarial. In February, the administration issued a similar order against Covington & Burling LLP, another prominent Washington law firm involved in investigations against President Trump. These actions have raised concerns about potential retaliation against legal professionals based on their client relationships and political affiliations.

Perkins Coie’s lawsuit claimed the firm was being illegally targeted due to its legal work on behalf of Democratic clients. The firm welcomed Judge Howell’s ruling as an important step toward preventing the enforcement of what they characterized as a retaliatory executive order designed to intimidate those opposing the administration’s policies and actions.