Federal judge definitively prohibits Trump's executive action deemed unconstitutional, aiming at law firm Perkins Coie.
Unleashing the Truth: Judge Strikes Down Executive Order Aimed at Trump's Critics
In a jaw-dropping decision, a federal judge on Friday declared an executive order signed by President Donald Trump, targeting a prestigious law firm, unconstitutional.
US District Judge Beryl Howell, sounding the death knell for the controversial order, accused the executive order of violating the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, branding it a "reprehensible misuse of power." The order, known as EO 1423, was deemed a blatant attempt to silence opposition and a clear abuse of presidential authority.
"The Constitution affords vital safeguards against Executive excesses such as EO 1423," Howell penned in her comprehensive, 100-plus page opinion. "Executive officials, including the President, must not retaliate against individuals for protected speech."
The embattled law firm, Perkins Coie, had the misfortune of representing Hillary Clinton in 2016 and participating in voting rights litigation that Trump fiercely opposed. The firm was just one of several law firms that took on Trump's executive orders that targeted their security clearances, access to government officials, and contractor relationships with the government.
Howell's ruling marked a major victory for Perkins Coie, as it was the first to dismantle an executive order targeting a law firm and do so on a permanent basis. As a cherry on top, her decision echoed the words of William Shakespeare, John Adams, and the Bill of Rights as she derided Trump's strategy to stifle opposing viewpoints.
"In a lamentable echo of 'Let's kill all the lawyers,'" Howell wrote, referring to a line from Shakespeare's "Henry VI," the executive order "adopts the strategy of 'Let's kill the lawyers I don't like,' sending a clear message: lawyers must toe the party line or suffer the consequences."
The judge also cited the Constitution, stating that the government should respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with "tolerance, not coercion." Howell sided with the firm in finding that the order constituted unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech. She went further, condemning the order for being vague, outrageously biased, and a flagrant violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, as it infringed upon a client's right to choose counsel.
"EO 14230, the accompanying fact sheet, and the context surrounding the Order's issuance all serve to confirm President Trump's animus against the Firm," the judge wrote. "This animus is rooted in the Firm's representation of clients the President doesn't like, its legal work on behalf of opponents, and its progressive hiring policies that the President finds distasteful. These are all unacceptable reasons to punish a legal firm, and they render EO 14230 unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple."
This story has been updated with additional details.
Enrichment Data:Background:
- Trump's Executive Order: In March 2025, Trump signed an executive order accusing Perkins Coie of engaging in "dishonest and dangerous activity." The order was based on the firm's legal representation of Clinton and its progressive employment policies.
- Impact on Perkins Coie: The order enacted several harsh measures, including suspending security clearances held by lawyers at the firm, barring the firm from government contracts, instructing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate its hiring practices, and limiting employees' access to government buildings and meetings with officials.
Details of the Court Ruling:
- Judge's Decision: In response to the order, Judge Howell, appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled that the executive order was "motivated by retaliation" and unconstitutional.
- Constitutional Grounds: Judge Howell's 102-page decision highlighted that using federal power for viewpoint suppression was contrary to the Constitution, which requires the government to respond with tolerance rather than coercion.
- Pending Appeals: The ruling serves as the first final decision in cases brought by law firms that challenged Trump's executive orders. Similar cases involving firms like WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey remain pending, and Howell's ruling is likely to be appealed[1].
- The federal judge's ruling on EO 1425, signed by President Trump, echoes the importance of tolerance in responding to dissenting viewpoints, as outlined in the Constitution.
- The contemporary decision, made by Judge Beryl Howell, targets an unconstitutional executive order that she branded as a misuse of power, aiming to silence opposition.
- Perkins Coie, the law firm under scrutiny, was accused of engaging in "dishonest and dangerous activity" in Trump's executive order from March 2025, a claim the court found to be motivated by retaliation.
- Following Perkins Coie's victory in the court, the decision serves as a precedent for other cases involving similar executive orders targeting law firms, such as WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey.
- Amid the ongoing controversies in politics, general news, and policy-and-legislation, war-and-conflicts, and bondi, the judge's ruling underscores the importance of upholding the principles of the Constitution against unconstitutional actions.
