Judge Strikes Down Trump Order Targeting Law Firm Perkins Coie
The ruling declares the president’s action unconstitutional, in a decisive win for one of several firms targeted by the president
May 2, 2025
A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked an executive order from President Trump targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, declaring it unconstitutional, in the most decisive blow yet against Trump’s campaign to rein in some of the legal world’s most prominent firms.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C., is likely to serve as a model for judges weighing cases brought by other firms fighting back against similar orders. The sharply worded 102-page opinion rebuked the administration’s order and its motivations, saying the case presented an “unprecedented attack” on foundational principles to ensure lawyers have “crucial independence” from any group that wields power.
Trump’s March 6 executive order singled out Perkins Coie for its work for Hillary Clinton in her failed presidential bid, including its role with an opposition-research firm that compiled a discredited dossier against Trump. The president also criticized the firm for working with liberal donor George Soros, and adopting internal diversity initiatives. The order stripped security clearances from the firm’s lawyers, limited their access to federal buildings, and ordered agencies to take steps to end government contracts from its clients.
Howell wrote that the text of the executive order, and Trump’s statements about it, made clear that he targeted Perkins Coie because it represented clients he doesn’t like, and clients challenging some of his actions.
“That is unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple,” wrote the judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
She also warned of the order’s broader consequences: “Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.”
A Perkins Coie spokesman said the decision “affirms core constitutional freedoms all Americans hold dear, including free speech, due process, and the right to select counsel without the fear of retribution.”
The Perkins Coie order was part of a series of executive actions Trump has issued against major law firms, citing their connections to political and legal adversaries of the president, as well their pro bono work. Four targeted firms sued to stop the sanctions from taking effect. An order against another firm, Paul Weiss, was rescinded after the firm reached an agreement with the Trump administration.
At least nine other large firms made deals to avoid the orders. In total the administration has secured nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services for causes it supports through its agreements with the settling firms.
The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.
In its lawsuit challenging the order, Perkins Coie said that the action was unconstitutional and an overreach of executive power. It told the court it was at risk of losing its most lucrative clients, as they frequently work with the federal government, and many are major government contractors. In fact, the firm told the court, it did lose clients. It was, however, able to retain other big-name clients such as Boeing, Amazon, and Microsoft.
In a hearing last month, a lawyer representing the Trump administration, Richard Lawson, said the president has broad leeway to take action against the firms, particularly when it comes to national security issues.
Howell was skeptical of the Justice Department’s arguments, and called the administration’s orders a “shakedown” of law firms. She said the speed at which the administration rescinded an executive order against Paul Weiss made the explanation that it was due to the president’s national security concerns implausible.
Howell’s ruling took a swipe at law firms that made deals with the White House. Clients may have reservations about those firms, she wrote, “since at least the publicized deal terms appear only to forestall, rather than eliminate, the threat of being targeted.”
“If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written,” she wrote.
The executive orders have been broadly condemned throughout the legal world. A number of groups, including state attorneys general, law professors, and former judges and company general counsels, filed briefs to the court in support of Perkins Coie’s position, saying the orders create a dangerous precedent.
However, the most elite firms have been largely quiet, fearing the president’s retribution, as efforts to convince them to make a public show of support for Perkins Coie have faltered.
Howell had already temporarily blocked the order from taking effect, saying it creates a chilling effect that could harm the legal industry. Three other federal judges issued separate early rulings that temporarily blocked executive orders against law firms WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. Judges in those cases are also considering motions from the firms to strike down the orders entirely.
Write to Erin Mulvaney at erin.mulvaney@wsj.com and Jan Wolfe at jan.wolfe@wsj.com
Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the May 3, 2025, print edition as 'Judge Rejects Order Targeting Law Firm'.