When Beryl A. Howell, a federal judge in Washington D.C., struck down President Donald J. Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie LLP, she didn’t just issue a legal ruling—she drew a line in the sand for American democracy. On May 2, 2025, after a 102-page analysis that read like a constitutional manifesto, Judge Howell permanently blocked Executive Order 14230, a sweeping directive signed by Trump on March 6, 2025, that sought to punish one of the nation’s most prominent law firms for representing clients the administration disliked. The order didn’t just freeze contracts or revoke clearances—it aimed to silence legal advocacy itself. And the court said: not on our watch.
What the Order Did—and Why It Was So Dangerous
Executive Order 14230 didn’t just target Perkins Coie’s legal work. It went after everyone who worked there. Security clearances for all 1,000 attorneys and staff were suspended. Attorneys were barred from entering federal buildings. Government contracts worth millions were terminated overnight. Even contractors across the country were forced to disclose any past or current dealings with the firm within 30 days. The order’s language was chillingly broad: it didn’t specify which clients or cases triggered the punishment, only that Perkins Coie had represented people Trump opposed—including Hillary Clinton in 2016 and groups tied to George Soros.But here’s the twist: this wasn’t about national security. It was about politics dressed up as policy. Judge Howell noted that Trump had quietly lifted penalties against other firms that offered pro bono services to his administration. Meanwhile, Perkins Coie, which had defended voting rights cases and election integrity efforts, was being treated like a criminal enterprise. "In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘let’s kill all the lawyers,’" Howell wrote, "the President’s executive order takes the approach of ‘let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like.’"
The Legal Backlash: Professors, ACLU, and a Court That Didn’t Blink
Perkins Coie didn’t wait for the hammer to fall. On March 11, 2025, the firm filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—and the next day, Judge Howell issued a temporary restraining order that immediately halted enforcement. That wasn’t just fast—it was historic. Federal judges don’t usually move that quickly to block presidential orders, especially ones framed as national security measures. But Howell saw through it.
By April 2, 2025, 363 law professors from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and dozens of other schools signed an amicus brief calling the order "an unprecedented assault on the independence of the legal profession." They warned that if the government could punish firms for representing unpopular clients, no one would be safe. Imagine a defense attorney for a protestor, a tax lawyer for a whistleblower, or a civil rights firm for a marginalized community—all suddenly at risk of losing their livelihoods because a president didn’t like their clients’ politics.
The American Civil Liberties Union was even more direct. Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney, called the order "an outrage" that sought to intimidate lawyers from doing what they’re sworn to do: "zealously advocating for their clients, regardless of whether those clients are perceived enemies of the president."
Constitutional Violations: More Than Just Free Speech
Judge Howell didn’t stop at the First Amendment. She laid out a cascade of constitutional breaches. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process was violated because Perkins Coie was punished without any hearing, any evidence of wrongdoing, and no clear standard for what conduct triggered the penalties. The Sixth Amendment—the right to counsel—was undermined because clients could no longer hire the lawyers they trusted, for fear the government would retaliate against them. And perhaps most dangerously, the order usurped judicial authority: by declaring which firms could or couldn’t represent parties before federal agencies, Trump was essentially acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
"No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit," Howell wrote. "This is not policy. This is persecution."
Perkins Coie: More Than Just a Law Firm
Founded in 1912 in Seattle, Perkins Coie LLP is not a fringe outfit. It’s a global powerhouse with offices in New York, London, Hong Kong, and Washington D.C. It represented Facebook during its early regulatory battles, advised the Obama campaign, and handled high-profile election litigation. But it’s also the kind of firm that takes on cases others won’t—voting rights, climate litigation, Indigenous land rights. That’s why it’s been targeted before. And that’s why this ruling matters far beyond one firm’s balance sheet.
"This ruling affirms core constitutional freedoms all Americans hold dear," Perkins Coie said in its statement after the decision. "We are immensely grateful to those who spoke up in support of our positions." That’s not just gratitude—it’s a reminder that when institutions like law firms, courts, and civil liberties groups stand together, they can still hold power accountable.
What’s Next? A Precedent That Could Reshape Power
This isn’t over. Trump’s team has already signaled they may appeal. But Judge Howell’s ruling is a fortress of legal reasoning. It doesn’t just protect Perkins Coie—it protects every lawyer, every client, every American who believes in the rule of law over the whims of a president. The order also targeted Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP for its role in litigation surrounding January 6, but that order was blocked separately. Now, with Perkins Coie’s case settled, the precedent is set: you cannot weaponize the federal government against lawyers for doing their jobs.
And if the next administration tries something similar? Courts now have a blueprint to stop it. This ruling didn’t just save a law firm. It preserved the very idea that in America, the law doesn’t bend to the president’s preferences—it bends to the Constitution.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does this ruling affect lawyers who represent political opponents?
The ruling establishes that no federal agency can punish lawyers, law firms, or their staff simply because they represent clients the administration dislikes. This protects the entire legal profession’s ability to function without fear of retaliation—whether it’s defending immigrants, whistleblowers, or political rivals. Without this protection, lawyers might refuse cases out of self-preservation, undermining the justice system.
Why did Judge Howell reference Shakespeare’s "kill all the lawyers" line?
Judge Howell used the line from Shakespeare’s "Henry VI" to highlight the irony: in the play, the phrase is spoken by a rebel who wants to destroy legal order to seize power. By invoking it, Howell framed Trump’s order as a tyrannical move—not a legitimate policy. The comparison wasn’t just rhetorical; it was a warning that targeting lawyers is a hallmark of authoritarianism, not democracy.
Could this happen again under a future president?
Technically, yes—but now there’s a clear legal barrier. Judge Howell’s decision sets a binding precedent in the D.C. federal court, one that other judges will cite for decades. Any future executive order targeting law firms for political reasons will face immediate legal challenges, and courts now have a detailed roadmap to strike them down on constitutional grounds.
What role did the 363 law professors play in this case?
Their amicus brief provided critical scholarly weight to Perkins Coie’s argument, showing that the executive order wasn’t just controversial—it was widely viewed by legal experts as a fundamental threat to the profession’s independence. Judges often rely on such expert consensus to assess the broader implications of a ruling, and here, the professors’ unified voice helped convince Howell that this was an existential crisis for the rule of law.
Why was the ACLU involved, and what’s their stake?
The ACLU has long defended the right to counsel and free speech, especially when those rights are under political pressure. They saw this case as a direct attack on the First Amendment’s protection of association and advocacy. Their involvement signaled that this wasn’t just a law firm’s problem—it was a civil liberties emergency. Their statement reinforced that the ruling wasn’t about politics, but about whether Americans can trust their legal system to remain neutral.
What does this mean for clients of Perkins Coie?
Clients can now hire Perkins Coie without fear that their lawyers will be barred from courtrooms, stripped of security access, or blacklisted by federal agencies. More broadly, it reassures anyone seeking legal representation that their choice of counsel cannot be punished by the government. That’s foundational to a fair justice system—no one should be forced to pick a lawyer because the president approves of them.
- Nov, 18 2025
- Cassius Montgomery
- 0 Comments
- permalink
Write a comment