from the alice-in-wonderland-times dept
Generally speaking, if a judge says this to you, your client is unlikely to succeed in their case:
“This may be amusing in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ where the Queen of Hearts yells ‘Off with their heads!’ at annoying subjects… but this cannot be the reality we are living under.”
That was Judge Beryl Howell yesterday, as she swiftly blocked President Trump’s executive order targeting law firm Perkins Coie. The judge’s literary reference captured perfectly why this unprecedented attempt to destroy a law firm for representing political opponents represents such a dangerous assault on constitutional principles.
Just a few days ago, I went into great detail about how ridiculous President Trump’s executive order against Perkins Coie was. Most people recognized how petty and vindictive it was for a President to use an executive order to punish a law firm for a couple of its clients, but the problems with the executive order went much deeper, showing how the Trump administration was sowing the seeds to effectively destroy any lawyers who sought to challenge the Trump administration’s unlawful behavior.
Later that day, Perkins Coie sued the US government to challenge the executive order, and it’s quite a read. It’s really worth reprinting the ten paragraphs in the complaint that describe what this case is about, because it lays it out in precise detail just how fucked up the situation is:
This case concerns an Executive Order issued on March 6, 2025, entitled, “Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP” (“the Order”). The Order is 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. Perkins Coie brings this case reluctantly. The firm is comprised of lawyers who advocate for clients; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients—and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all—are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied. The firm is committed to a resolute defense of the rule of law, without regard to party or ideology, and therefore brings this lawsuit to declare the Order unlawful and to enjoin its implementation.
The Order’s peculiar title betrays its oddity as an Executive Order, for its purpose is not executive in nature. Rather, the Order reflects a purpose that is judicial—to adjudicate whether a handful of lawyers at Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins Coie,” “the law firm,” or “the firm”) engaged in misconduct in the course of litigation and then to punish them by: (1) terminating government contracts with firm clients, thereby driving away current and prospective clients; (2) denying all members and employees of the firm access to federal buildings and meetings or other engagement with federal employees; and (3) immediately suspending, and possibly revoking, security clearances for all firm employees.
The Order imposes these punishments on the entire law firm even though the attorneys involved in the purported misconduct numbered a mere handful of the more than 1,200 attorneys in the firm, and even though the two attorneys the Order appears to target have not been with the firm for years
The Order imposes these punishments ex post facto—the President having already supposedly adjudicated the matters—determining that Perkins Coie engaged in “dishonest and dangerous activity,” “manufactured” evidence in connection with the Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, engaged in “a pattern” of “egregious activity” by challenging (and defending) election laws, and “racially discriminated against” its employees and applicants, all without giving notice to Perkins Coie and without giving Perkins Coie an opportunity to be heard and contest these and other false and disparaging claims made in the Order.
The Order imposes these punishments as retaliation for the firm’s association with, and representation of, clients that the President perceives as his political opponents. Many law firms represented candidates, parties, and related political committees and organizations in the 2016 and 2020 campaigns. But the Order targets only one firm—Perkins Coie—because the President views it, more than any other firm, as aligned with the Democratic Party by reason of its representation of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign and its successful handling of challenges brought by the Trump campaign seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as victories the firm won for its clients in a significant number of voting rights cases, including cases where Perkins Coie succeeded in upholding existing laws, in connection with the 2020 election.
During the campaign, the President promised to retaliate against his political opponents, including the attorneys who represented them (“WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law…. Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers….”). And, in signing the Order, he insisted that Perkins Coie engaged in weaponization “against a political opponent” (i.e., himself) and justified the Order for the chilling effect it would have (“it should never be allowed to happen again”).
The retaliatory aim of the Order is intentionally obvious to the general public and the press because the very goal is to chill future lawyers from representing particular clients. The Associated Press wrote that “the actions appear designed not only to settle scores from years past but also to deter both government officials and private sector workers from participating in new inquiries into his conduct.” And that aim is also obvious to the profession, many of whom will only comment anonymously, as Law.com reported (“most law firm leaders are choosing to stay anonymous when speaking about the administration’s orders”).
The principal claims made by the Order have already been raised in the proper forum and resolved by the branch of government with constitutional authority to do so. Regarding the claim that the firm engaged in misconduct in connection with its representation of the Clinton campaign, the President filed a federal court lawsuit in March 2022 against Perkins Coie, Hillary Clinton, and others. That lawsuit asserted RICO claims concerning the campaign and allegedly falsified documents. The district court dismissed that lawsuit in September 2022. Regarding the assertion that the firm “pushed” false claims about ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, a Special Counsel appointed during the first Trump Administration indicted Michael Sussmann, a former partner of the firm, in connection with evidence he brought to the attention of the FBI, allegedly without disclosing his ties to the Clinton campaign. That case went to trial in this Court in May 2022, and the jury quickly and unanimously acquitted him. Regardless, Mr. Sussmann is now at a different firm. And regarding the claim that former members of the firm were not candid with the court, the court concerned—the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit— sanctioned three lawyers in 2021 by requiring them to pay $8,700 in legal fees in connection with one duplicative motion to supplement the record on appeal. None of those lawyers work for Perkins Coie today.
The Order also seeks to impermissibly punish Perkins Coie because of its disfavored support of “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Perkins Coie has a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion. Perkins Coie, however, does not discriminate against its attorneys or employees on the basis of race or otherwise. Rather, fostering an environment where attorneys from diverse backgrounds and experiences can thrive and make meaningful contributions enables Perkins Coie to attract top talent and deliver exceptional legal counsel to its clients. Perkins Coie does not have, and has never had, percentage quotas for hiring or promoting minorities. The lawsuit referenced in the Order challenging the firm’s diversity fellowship was quickly dismissed by the plaintiff after clarification that the program is open to all, regardless of race. Perkins Coie’s commitment to diversity and inclusion is not unlawful and the Order’s allegations are a thinly veiled pretext for further punishing the firm for a disfavored viewpoint.
Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
The sheer volume of constitutional violations flowing from this administration has created a kind of normalization of lawlessness — where even the most brazen attacks on democratic institutions get treated as mere boundary-pushing rather than the authoritarian power grabs they are.
But Judge Howell wasn’t having any of it. Within hours of the hearing, she issued a Temporary Restraining Order that didn’t just block the order — it required the government to actively tell all federal employees to disregard the original order entirely.
While the written TRO is pretty straightforward, it appears that during the hearing held earlier in the day, Judge Beryl Howell saw this for what it is:
Howell said the “retaliatory animus” of Trump’s order is “clear on its face” and appears to violate constitutional restrictions on “viewpoint discrimination.” The executive order, which Trump issued last week, “runs head on into the wall of First Amendment protections,” the judge concluded.
She also apparently called out the very obvious chilling effects created by the executive order:
“I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here… The order casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportions across the legal profession.”
She also called out the due process issues, referencing some classic literature in the process:
The judge said Trump’s order was also flawed because it was issued without any notice to the firm or due process to challenge his determination.
“This may be amusing in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ where the Queen of Hearts yells, ‘Off with their heads!’ at annoying subjects … and announces a sentence before a verdict,” Howell said, “but this cannot be the reality we are living under.”
The hearing itself revealed just how far the administration was willing to go to defend this unconstitutional order. In an unusual move, DOJ’s number three official and chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, personally appeared to argue the case — raising questions about whether career DOJ attorneys had refused to defend such a blatantly unconstitutional action.
Mizelle’s arguments laid bare the order’s authoritarian foundations. He insisted the President has “sole authority” to declare any person or company untrustworthy, while claiming — apparently with a straight face — that the devastating impact on Perkins Coie’s business was merely “speculative.”
“The president of the United States … is authorized under the Constitution to find certain individuals and certain companies are not trustworthy with the nations’ secrets,” Mizelle said.
Judge Howell’s response was appropriately scathing. She recognized what this claim really meant: that a president could unilaterally destroy any law firm by simply declaring it a “national security threat” — no evidence or due process required.
This case represents more than just another example of the administration’s willingness to fabricate justifications for punishing its perceived enemies. It’s a stark reminder that the judiciary remains one of the few institutions still willing to call out raw authoritarianism for what it is. The question is: how long can courts hold the line when the attacks on constitutional principles grow more brazen by the day?
Filed Under: 1st amendment, beryl howell, chad mizelle, doj, donald trump, due process, free speech, retaliation, temporary restraining order
Companies: perkins coie
