Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Punitive Actions Against Law Firm Perkins Coie

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from enforcing actions aimed at punishing Perkins Coie, a prominent law firm, alleging that these measures are politically motivated and potentially unlawful. The order from U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell came on Wednesday, one day after Perkins Coie filed a federal lawsuit claiming the administration was undermining their operations due to the firm’s previous legal work in the 2016 campaign.

The judge characterized the president’s actions as a threat to the integrity of the U.S. legal system, emphasizing the importance of protecting lawyers who represent clients with views that may be unfavorable to the government. “Such a circumstance threatens the very foundation of our legal system,” Howell stated, underscoring that justice is best served when all parties have robust legal representation.

The temporary restraining order was issued after an intense court hearing, where Chad Mizelle, Chief of Staff for Attorney General Pam Bondi, defended the administration’s measures. Mizelle argued that the president has the authority to act against entities perceived as threats to national security. “If that means excluding individuals that are no longer trustworthy with the nation’s secrets, that’s a bedrock principle of our republic,” Mizelle said.

Perkins Coie reported that the administration’s restrictive measures are already causing financial harm, limiting access to federal buildings for its employees and terminating contracts held by various clients. The enforcement action does not, however, prevent the administration from stripping Perkins Coie attorneys of their security clearances.

According to the firm, all 15 of its top clients hold government contracts, with some clients withdrawing legal arrangements or threatening to do so in response to the executive actions. Dane Butswinkas, an attorney representing Perkins Coie, warned that if the order remains effective, it could lead to the “end of the law firm.” He criticized the administration’s order, stating, “This executive order takes a wrecking ball to the rule of law, to the principles that promote democracy.”

Perkins Coie is notably recognized for representing the 2016 presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as well as for its involvement in various voting rights challenges during the 2020 elections. The firm has faced scrutiny since it was revealed to have engaged Fusion GPS, a research firm employed to investigate potential ties between Trump and Russia during the 2016 campaign. Fusion GPS subsequently hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile a report that included allegations of compromising information about Trump’s connections to Russia. Much of the contents of the report have been discredited, particularly after special counsel John Durham‘s 2023 findings regarding the origins of the FBI’s investigation.

In a statement following the judge’s ruling, Perkins Coie’s spokesperson indicated their intention to challenge the executive order, labeling it as “patently unlawful.” The order directs the attorney general and heads of various agency departments to review and potentially suspend active security clearances and limit access to federal buildings by attorneys from the firm.

The situation intensifies criticism regarding the Trump administration’s ongoing actions against perceived political adversaries, including legal and intelligence officials. Trump has previously condemned the firms and individuals questioning his administration, firmly stating that such practices must not continue in a democratic society. The unfolding legal battle over Perkins Coie highlights the complicated intersection between law, politics, and the administration’s authority.