Left: Donald Trump at a rally on Oct. 1, 2022, in Michigan (Emily Elconin/Getty Images). Right: Hillary Clinton on Sept. 19, 2022, at an event in New York City (Spencer Platt/Getty Images).
A federal judge expressed skepticism regarding the constitutionality of Donald Trump’s executive order targeting the Hillary Clinton-linked law firm Perkins Coie during a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday before ultimately ordering a temporary block on the measure. The decision was an early victory for Perkins Coie as the president continued to escalate attacks on law firms for representing clients he perceived as his political enemies.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell granted the firm’s request for a temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s order, which sought to suspend security clearances for Perkins Coie employees, bar them from accessing government buildings, prohibit meetings with federal employees, and terminate any contracts the firm may have had with the federal government.
“The retaliatory nature of Executive Order 14230 is clear from its face,” Howell said during discussions dissecting the specifics of Trump’s order. “This language makes clear the executive order is a means of retaliating against Perkins Coie for representing individual clients who are the president’s political opponents or who the president does not like.”
The hearing came only one day after Perkins Coie filed its complaint in federal court asserting that Trump’s order was “an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice.”
“Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients,” the complaint stated.
During the hearing, Perkins Coie was represented by attorney Dane Butswinkas of the firm Williams & Connolly LLP. Butswinkas argued that the order was nothing more than Trump seeking retribution on Perkins Coie in an effort to destroy their business.
“I hardly have to explain the colossal damage that that rule, imposed on one law firm and no other, has on their ability to practice their profession,” Butswinkas said.
In a sworn statement, Perkins Coie said multiple clients who had been with the firm for years had either left or said they were likely leaving due to Trump’s order while government officials had already started canceling meetings and refusing access to employees.
The Justice Department contended that Trump’s order concerned national security and argued that it was entirely within the purview of the president’s Article II powers, but an incredulous Howell seemed unconvinced. Howell appeared particularly perturbed after asking the DOJ attorney if he believed Trump was authorized to take the same punitive measures that he’d taken against Perkins Coie against Williams & Connolly, simply because the firm was representing Perkins and Coie in the matter.
The DOJ responded by saying such an action was squarely within the president’s power if the punishment of the person or business was deemed to be “inconsistent with the interest of the United States.”
“That sent chills down my spine,” Howell responded.
She later opined that it was a “pretty extraordinary power” that was akin to a bill of attainder. She went on to compare the president’s purported power to “Alice in Wonderland,” with the Queen of Hearts yelling, “Off with their heads.”
Howell ultimately granted the temporary restraining order, reasoning that Perkins Coie was likely to succeed on its claims that Trump’s order violated the First and Fifth Amendments and was clearly “retaliatory” in nature.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
