On Wednesday, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction that halted significant parts of an executive order signed by Donald Trump, which posed potential harm to a prominent law firm. The judge ruled that the president invoked national security concerns as a means to retaliate against Perkins Coie for its past work with Hillary Clinton.
The executive order released last week by Trump revoked security clearances for attorneys at Perkins Coie, mandated the termination of any existing contracts, and prohibited federal employees from working with the firm’s lawyers or granting them access to government premises.
In the order, Trump classified Perkins Coie as a national security threat primarily due to its engagement of Fusion GPS during the 2016 Clinton campaign, which resulted in a “dossier” making unfounded allegations regarding Trump’s connections with Russia.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell dismissed Trump’s arguments and issued a temporary restraining order on Wednesday to stop the majority of the executive order’s provisions. The order did not extend to the revocation of clearances, as Perkins Coie did not request that remedy.
“It sends little chills down my spine,” Howell remarked about Trump using national security as a rationale to target Perkins Coie, likening the executive order to a “bill of attainder” – a legislative measure that penalizes without a trial, which is expressly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
The Justice Department contended that Perkins Coie’s lawsuit lacked merit because the executive order had not caused them any actual harm—none of their lawyers had been barred from entering federal buildings—and insisted that the concerns were merely speculative.
Additionally, the department questioned Perkins Coie’s assertion that they had lost clients due to the executive order, suggesting that clients might have changed law firms for various reasons unrelated to the order.
Howell rejected these arguments, accepting a 20-page statement from a Perkins Coie partner that described how one Justice Department lawyer had refused a meeting due to the executive order. Moreover, some clients had explicitly mentioned the order as a reason for discontinuing their relationship with Perkins Coie.
She agreed with Perkins Coie that the financial losses constituted irreparable harm in this situation, a rare exception given that the law firm relies heavily on its interactions with the federal government.
The Justice Department conceded that even if Howell found the executive order ill-advised or disagreed with its motivations, the power to revoke clearances and designate entities as national security threats falls within the president’s authorities, and Trump was not required to provide justification.
“It is fundamentally the president’s prerogative, not reviewable by the courts, whether somebody is trustworthy with the nation’s secrets. The president has made that finding here and everything else in the executive order … flows from that determination,” argued Chad Mizelle, the Justice Department’s chief of staff, who unusually presented the case before Howell.
However, Howell disputed the assertion that Perkins Coie constituted a national security risk solely because Trump deemed the contents of the Fusion GPS dossier, compiled by a former British intelligence officer, as completely unfounded. She noted that the two attorneys associated with the Clinton campaign had left the firm long ago.
She also pointed out that the executive order seemed retaliatory, considering Trump had previously lost a personal lawsuit against Perkins Coie, stating: “This ground is a personal grievance that President Trump has already attempted to pursue in a personal lawsuit that was dismissed in its entirety by a court in the Southern District of New York.”
“To the extent that this executive order appears to be an instance of President Trump using taxpayer dollars and government resources,” Howell remarked, “to pursue what is a wholly personal vendetta, advancing such political payback is not something which the government has a cognizable interest.”
The approximately three-hour hearing in federal district court in Washington, D.C., took place just one day after Perkins Coie sought a temporary restraining order upon the advice of Williams and Connolly, another high-profile firm in the capital known for combating government overreach.
Initially, Perkins Coie approached Quinn Emanuel, a firm that has previously represented individuals within Trump’s circle, including Elon Musk and the Trump Organization, as well as New York Mayor Eric Adams, whose corruption charges were dropped last month by the Justice Department.
However, Quinn Emanuel opted not to take on Perkins Coie as a client, fearing involvement in a politically sensitive issue could make them a target as they have emerged as a powerful entity in Washington, D.C.
While other law firms have contemplated filing amicus briefs or declarations to support Perkins Coie, the firm ultimately retained Williams and Connolly, which advised them to seek an emergency hearing and temporary restraining order—both of which Howell granted.
