A federal judge issued a temporary injunction on Wednesday, preventing President Trump’s effort to retaliate against a law firm that represented Hillary Clinton. The judge ruled that an executive order signed by the president last week improperly targeted the Perkins Coie law firm and infringed upon its First Amendment rights.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell granted a temporary restraining order that halts three sections of the executive order from taking effect against Perkins Coie. These provisions include a ban on firm attorneys entering government buildings, restrictions on communication between federal officials and the firm’s attorneys, and subjecting the firm’s contracts with federal contractors to review by agency heads in the Trump administration.
Dane Butswinkas, the attorney representing Perkins Coie, argued in court that the executive order acts like a “wrecking ball” or a “tidal wave,” threatening to significantly hinder the firm’s ability to work in Washington, D.C., on cases involving the federal government. He noted that there are thousands of ongoing cases across more than 90 government agencies, and about 25% of the firm’s work involves government matters.
This week, Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming the executive order violated the firm’s constitutional rights to free speech and association. The firm served as legal counsel for Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign against Trump and worked with a research firm that produced the controversial “Steele Dossier,” which included unproven allegations of ties between Trump, Russia, and his associates.
Butswinkas also expressed concern that the executive order would create a chilling effect on law firms throughout Washington, obstructing their ability to advocate for clients without the risk of retaliation for challenging the president or his administration.
In a rare occurrence, Chad Mizelle, the chief of staff for Attorney General Pam Bondi, represented the Justice Department in the case.
Mizelle contended that Trump possesses the executive authority to designate certain individuals or companies as untrustworthy regarding national secrets and that the president’s actions toward the law firm are “not reviewable” by the judiciary.
Butswinkas countered in his closing arguments, “That’s a different Constitution than I am familiar with,” adding, “If left unchecked, we’ll be left in a country we barely recognize.”
Judge Howell criticized the actions of the Trump administration, stating from the bench that it “sends little chills down my spine” that the administration claims the authority to identify individuals as threats and prohibit their engagement with the government. She observed that many of the lawyers involved in Trump-related cases have left the firm, indicating that the language of the order was unreasonably broad in targeting Perkins Coie.
Although the executive order also revoked the security clearances of Perkins Coie’s attorneys, the law firm did not contest that particular aspect in its lawsuit.
Perkins Coie is only one of the law firms that the Trump administration has pursued during his presidency. Recently, Trump signed another executive order targeting Covington & Burling attorneys, who represent former special counsel Jack Smith, the federal prosecutor who filed criminal charges against Trump regarding his handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
In a Fox News interview that aired on Sunday, Trump mentioned Perkins Coie, asserting that his administration has “a lot of law firms that we’re going to go after because they were very dishonest people.” He described these firms as “so bad for our country.”
Bengali (Bangladesh) · 
English (United States) ·