Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie expressed gratitude following a legal victory on Friday. A federal judge ruled against an executive order from former President Donald Trump that targeted the firm. The ruling found the executive order unconstitutional, marking a significant win for the law firm. The order, issued in March, sought to revoke federal clearances for Perkins Coie employees and cancel contracts with federal agencies. The firm had previously been linked to several political actions during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.
Background on the Executive Order
In March, former President Trump issued an executive order targeting Perkins Coie. The firm had worked on legal matters related to his political opponents. The order criticized Perkins Coie for hiring Fusion GPS during the 2016 election campaign. Trump’s administration also criticized the firm’s diversity hiring practices. The administration argued that Perkins Coie’s activities harmed the country, specifically pointing to the controversial Steele dossier.
The Legal Victory
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled the executive order violated the First Amendment, which protects free speech, and the Fifth Amendment, which ensures due process. The judge’s ruling blocked the order, saying it unlawfully restricted free expression and went beyond government authority. This ruling is a major victory for Perkins Coie, which had argued that the order violated its constitutional rights.
Judge Howell had already issued a temporary restraining order earlier this year, halting the implementation of Trump’s executive order. Friday’s decision was the final judgment, reinforcing the temporary block. Howell noted that the government could not punish a private entity for lawful political activity.
Trump’s Executive Order and Its Implications
Trump’s order came amid political tensions after his return to the White House in January. Since then, he has issued executive orders targeting law firms and organizations linked to political investigations or opponents. The order against Perkins Coie is part of a broader effort to hold firms accountable for their work with political opponents or investigations.
Legal challenges to these orders have sparked debates over free speech and the separation of powers. Critics argue that the orders represent unconstitutional overreach, while supporters claim they are necessary to address perceived political injustices.
Perkins Coie’s Response
Perkins Coie issued a statement thanking the public for their support during the legal process. The firm reaffirmed its commitment to providing legal services with integrity. The ruling is seen as a win for Perkins Coie and as a critical affirmation of the constitutional protections for legal entities in the U.S.
Perkins Coie played a significant role in representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. The firm has been involved in various high-profile legal cases. Its work with Fusion GPS, the research firm behind the Steele dossier, remains a point of controversy for Trump and his supporters.
Legal and Political Context
This ruling is part of a pattern of legal challenges faced by firms and individuals connected to political investigations or opposition to Trump. Some law firms have reached settlements to avoid being targeted by similar executive orders. These firms have pledged significant resources to support causes aligned with the president’s agenda, including nearly $1 billion in free legal services.
What’s Next for Perkins Coie
With this legal victory, Perkins Coie can continue working with federal agencies without facing restrictions on its employees or contracts. The firm’s legal team will likely defend its constitutional rights if similar orders are issued in the future.
This ruling could set a precedent for other law firms facing similar challenges. As legal battles surrounding executive orders and free speech unfold, this case may influence future rulings on such matters.
