May 2 – On Friday, a federal judge invalidated Donald Trump’s executive order against the law firm Perkins Coie, ruling that it violated constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and due process. The judge also strongly criticized Trump for using presidential authority to pursue what she described as personal grudges.
Judge Howell Delivers Strong Rebuke of Presidential Overreach
In a landmark decision, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell handed down the most significant legal rebuke yet to Republican President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to punish law firms perceived as hostile to his interests. The ruling addressed a controversial executive order signed by Trump on March 6, which attempted to restrict Perkins Coie, a prominent law firm, from engaging with federal agencies. The judge found that the order infringed upon constitutional rights and misused the power of the presidency.
Judge Howell’s opinion, extending over 102 pages, did not mince words in condemning the intent and execution of the order. She described the directive as a blatant misuse of executive authority, aimed at retaliating against a firm that had represented political opponents and challenged Trump’s actions in the past.
“Using the weight of government to punish disfavored individuals or entities for perceived political disloyalty or legal opposition is fundamentally at odds with democratic principles,” Howell wrote. “The executive order represents an unprecedented and dangerous effort to bend the legal profession to the will of one individual.”
The ruling prohibits any federal agency from enforcing the restrictions laid out in Trump’s order, restoring Perkins Coie’s full rights to operate and interact with the federal government without interference or prejudice. This judgment also marked the first time a court weighed in on the constitutionality of Trump’s series of executive actions directed against private law firms.
Legal Industry Reacts to Landmark Ruling
Perkins Coie, a Seattle-based firm with over 1,200 attorneys nationwide, expressed gratitude for the ruling and reaffirmed its commitment to defending constitutional values. In a statement, the firm emphasized its role in protecting not just its own interests, but also the broader principles of legal fairness and due process.
“We are thankful for the court’s careful consideration and for all who stood beside us,” the firm’s spokesperson said. “Our commitment to the principles of justice and the loyal service of our clients continues without compromise.”
The now-defunct executive order attempted to strip the firm of its access to federal properties and officials and threatened to terminate government contracts held by clients represented by Perkins Coie. The order alleged that the firm had engaged in “dishonest and dangerous activity” and went as far as accusing it of racial discrimination due to its workplace diversity and inclusion policies.
Lawyers representing the administration defended the action in court, arguing that the president was within his legal powers to issue such directives. However, Judge Howell forcefully rejected this claim, noting that no president has the authority to use executive power to silence or penalize lawful legal representation or advocacy.
“In a dramatic and almost theatrical twist,” Howell noted in her opinion, “the order echoes the infamous cry to ‘kill all the lawyers’ — but modifies it to mean ‘kill only those who won’t fall in line.’” She further warned that such actions, if left unchecked, could erode the independence of the legal profession and threaten the impartiality of the justice system itself.
Perkins Coie’s lawsuit rested on the claim that Trump’s order violated the First Amendment, which safeguards free speech, and the Fifth Amendment, which ensures that no individual or entity is deprived of rights without due process. Howell agreed on both counts, concluding that the executive order was based not on national interest but on personal animosity.
Other legal giants have faced similar executive pressure during Trump’s administration. Firms such as WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey also filed legal challenges after facing executive orders that similarly aimed to limit their operations or punish them for representing clients seen as critical of Trump.
While those cases are still pending, Judge Howell’s decision could set a powerful precedent. Courts in those cases have so far issued temporary restraining orders, but this ruling marks the first full legal invalidation of such an order.
Some law firms have reportedly reached settlements with Trump to avoid similar consequences, with reports indicating commitments totaling close to $1 billion in pro bono work aligned with Trump’s policy priorities. Critics argue these deals amount to submission under political duress.
Perkins Coie believes its targeting was due not just to its past work with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, but also its longstanding focus on equitable hiring practices. Trump’s order painted these efforts as reverse discrimination, echoing broader criticisms from some political corners against diversity initiatives.
In her ruling, Howell emphasized that punishing a private firm over its legal clientele and internal policies sets a dangerous precedent. “Democracy requires an independent legal profession — not one that fears reprisal for doing its job,” she wrote.
While the White House declined to issue a response following the decision, the Justice Department is expected to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. For now, however, the judgment stands as a stern reminder that executive power must remain within the bounds set by the Constitution.