A federal judge has halted President Trump’s bold move to curb the influence of Perkins Coie, a leftist law firm that has been heavily involved in lawfare against Trump, according to The Hill.
On March 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell declared Trump’s executive order unconstitutional, delivering a setback to efforts to rein in elite legal players. The ruling underscores the ongoing clash between the administration and establishment institutions.
The decision came swiftly after Trump issued the executive order on March 6, 2025. It targeted Perkins Coie, a prominent law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. The order sought to bar the firm’s attorneys from federal buildings and revoke their security clearances.
Perkins Coie wasted no time, filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration within days. Judge Howell, in a 102-page ruling, blocked the order’s enforcement, citing First Amendment violations. Her decision marked a victory for the firm and its allies.
The executive order was part of a broader Trump strategy to confront law firms linked to his adversaries. Other firms, like WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, faced similar actions and fought back through lawsuits. Some, including Skadden Arps, reached deals to escape the administration’s restrictions.
Howell’s ruling emphasized the government’s overreach in targeting legal representation. She argued that punishing firms for their clients’ views undermines free speech. Her order demanded that the government cease enforcing the executive order immediately.
Perkins Coie’s swift legal response echoed the resistance of other targeted firms. Days before the final ruling, Howell had temporarily blocked parts of the order. This preliminary action foreshadowed her comprehensive March 6 decision.
The administration’s campaign against law firms reflects a broader push to challenge entrenched power structures.
Perkins Coie, with its deep ties to progressive causes, became a prime target. Trump’s order also called for a review of the firm’s federal contracts, signaling a wider crackdown.
Judge Howell’s ruling drew a sharp line against such tactics. She condemned the use of federal power to suppress dissenting viewpoints. Her decision framed the executive order as an attack on constitutional principles.
“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like this,” Howell wrote in her March 6 order. She likened the move to a historical playbook aimed at silencing legal advocates. The judge’s vivid language underscored the ruling’s weight.
Howell further criticized the order’s intent to punish firms for their political affiliations. “Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients is contrary to the Constitution,” she stated. Her words highlighted the tension between executive authority and individual rights.
The ruling joined a series of legal victories for law firms opposing Trump’s orders. Jenner & Block and others secured temporary restraining orders in similar cases. These outcomes suggest a judicial pushback against the administration’s approach.
Perkins Coie’s case stands out for its high-profile client history. The firm’s work for Clinton’s campaign made it a lightning rod for Trump’s ire. The executive order’s focus on security clearances and federal access aimed to cripple its operations.
Trump’s supporters see these orders as a necessary stand against elitist institutions that shield political opponents. Critics, however, view them as dangerous overreaches that threaten the rule of law. Howell’s ruling aligns with the latter, prioritizing constitutional protections over executive action.
The administration’s broader strategy continues to face legal hurdles. While some firms negotiated resolutions, Perkins Coie’s courtroom win sets a precedent. It signals that federal judges are wary of executive orders targeting private entities for political reasons.