Charles Esther
In a landmark decision on Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled to block former President Donald Trump’s executive order against the law firm Perkins Coie.
Howell’s ruling marks the first complete strike-down of one of Trump’s executive orders targeting major law firms, sending a strong message about the protection of constitutional freedoms.
The Executive Order and Its Impact
Trump’s Executive Order 14230, titled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” sought to penalize the firm for its legal representation of clients whose positions clashed with the President’s policies.
Specifically, the order targeted Perkins Coie for its involvement in representing Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election and its progressive employment practices.
The executive order revoked security clearances for the firm’s employees, barred them from interacting with federal agencies, and ordered reviews of the firm’s government contracts.
A Ruling Against Government Overreach
Judge Howell’s ruling was sharp and scathing.
She called Trump’s efforts to target Perkins Coie a “cringe-worthy” attempt to silence dissenting viewpoints.
In her decision, Howell referred to Shakespeare’s Henry VI, specifically the line “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” as a parallel to Trump’s order.
Howell argued that the executive order aimed to eliminate legal professionals who did not adhere to the administration’s views, which she considered an affront to the First Amendment.
A Violation of Constitutional Rights
Howell’s decision emphasized that the order was unconstitutional, claiming it sought to penalize Perkins Coie and its employees for representing clients and expressing viewpoints with which the President disagreed.
She stated, “Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies is contrary to the Constitution.”
A Broader Context: Attacks on Big Law Firms
Trump’s executive orders against Big Law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Covington & Burling represent a broader pattern of attacks on legal professionals who challenge or oppose the administration.
While Perkins Coie chose to fight back in court, some other firms, such as Paul Weiss, brokered deals to avoid the punitive actions of Trump’s administration.
For instance, Paul Weiss agreed to donate $40 million in pro bono services to causes favored by the administration in exchange for the rescinding of the executive order.
A Path Forward: The Legal Fight Continues
Perkins Coie’s legal team hailed the ruling, affirming that it protected fundamental freedoms, including the right to select counsel without fear of retaliation.
The firm’s statement further emphasized their commitment to safeguarding the interests of their clients and upholding the rule of law.
The ruling is significant because it marks a major victory against the use of executive power to target legal professionals for their political views.
Despite this victory, the federal government retains the right to appeal Howell’s ruling.
If the decision is appealed, it will be heard in the court of appeals and may ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
The Larger Implications for American Legal Practices
Howell’s ruling has broader implications for the legal profession and the separation of powers in the U.S. government.
By blocking the executive order, Howell reinforced the idea that government actions that attempt to suppress dissenting views or punish those who challenge the government’s narrative are unconstitutional.
This ruling stands as a reminder that the protection of free speech, due process, and the right to legal representation must remain strong, regardless of the political climate.
In the wake of this ruling, Big Law firms that have been targeted by similar orders may be encouraged to continue their legal challenges, potentially reshaping the relationship between the legal profession and the government.
Conclusion
Judge Howell’s decision to block Trump’s executive order against Perkins Coie is a significant win for the legal community and a reaffirmation of the constitutional protections that safeguard American freedoms.
While the legal battle may continue, this ruling stands as a strong defense against executive overreach and a reminder of the importance of preserving the independence of the legal profession.
