A United States district judge has struck down an executive order from President Donald Trump that targeted the law firm Perkins Coie over its representation of his Democratic election rival Hillary Clinton.
On Friday in Washington, DC, Judge Beryl A Howell issued a five-page order declaring the executive order unconstitutional.
“Executive Order 14230 is unlawful, null and void in its entirety and therefore should be disregarded,” Howell wrote in the order.
The ruling is the first to permanently nullify one of the executive orders Trump has issued against a law firm. His administration is expected to appeal.
As part of Judge Howell’s order, the Trump administration must cease any investigations of Perkins Coie, restore any rescinded services and allow the law firm to resume its “ordinary course of business” with the government.
In her full 102-page ruling, Judge Howell spelled out her rationale, declaring Trump’s executive order represented “an unprecedented attack” on the country’s “foundational principles”.
“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit,” she said in her opening lines. “In purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’”
Trump’s executive order, she added, offers a new twist on that Shakespearean phrase: “Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like.”
The case began on March 6, when Trump published Executive Order 14230 under the title, “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP”.
Citing the law firm’s work with Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, the executive order suspended the law firm’s security clearances, limited its access to government buildings and ordered agencies to terminate contracts with Perkins Coie when possible.
A handful of other law firms were also targeted with executive orders, including WilmerHale, Paul Weiss and Jenner & Block. Many had either represented causes unfavourable to Trump or had employed individuals with whom the president had expressed open displeasure.
But the idea that the president could withdraw services, security clearances, and even building access — simply because he disagreed with a law firm — raised questions about the constitutionality of those orders.
Critics pointed out that the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects individuals and companies from facing government retaliation for their free speech. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments, meanwhile, protect the right to due process and the right to seek legal counsel from law firms like Perkins Coie.
Many of the law firm’s clients had cases intimately involved with the inner workings of the government. Perkins Coie even said in its filings that its lawyers had to “necessarily interact with the federal government on behalf of their clients”.
It also added that some of its clients had started to reconsider working with Perkins Coie, in light of the executive order’s restrictions.
In April, more than 500 law firms signed an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie, arguing that Trump’s actions “would threaten the survival of any law firm” — and scare away clients.
Judge Howell validated those concerns in her ruling, saying that the law firm had “shown monetary harm sufficient to establish irreparable harm”. She also called the executive order an “overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints”.
But rather than face such punitive action, several high-profile law firms decided to cut a deal with the White House.
Paul Weiss was believed to be the first to strike a bargain, offering the administration $40m in pro bono legal services. Others followed suit: The firms Skadden, Milbank and Willkie Farr & Gallagher each agreed to perform $100m in free legal services.
In her ruling, Judge Howell warned that Trump’s executive orders against law firms could have a chilling effect on the entire profession and were tantamount to a power grab.
“Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power,” she wrote.
The Constitution, she added, “requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion’”.
