Trump order targeting Perkins Coie is 'affront to the Constitution,' suit says; judge sees 'chilling harm of blizzard proportions'
Perkins Coie has won a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit filed against the Trump administration over a directive targeting the law firm and its clients. (Image from Shutterstock)
Updated: Perkins Coie has won a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit filed against the Trump administration over a directive targeting the law firm and its clients.
President Donald Trump’s March 6 order suspended Perkins Coie’s security clearance, limited access to federal buildings by its lawyers, called for an investigation of diversity practices, and sought to end funding of government contractors that hire the firm.
U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order Wednesday, saying during a hearing Perkins Coie is likely to succeed of the merits of First Amendment and due process claims, report Law.com, the Washington Post, Law Dork, Courthouse News Service, Politico and Law360.
The TRO does not affect parts of Trump’s order regarding security clearances and diversity efforts because Perkins Coie did not request it in a TRO motion, choosing instead to focus on parts of the order in which the harm was most immediate.
The firm’s March 11 suit said the order appears to be retaliation for representing Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, as well as clients with cases adverse to the administration and its allies.
Trump’s order said the directive was necessary because of “dishonest and dangerous activity” by Perkins Coie that included hiring Fusion GPS, a company that compiled the so-called Steele dossier with allegations that the Russian government was trying to help Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The order also mentioned the firm’s work in election and military suits.
Howell said Wednesday the executive order was “a means of retaliating against Perkins Coie” for representing clients disfavored by Trump, who appeared to be implementing a “personal vendetta.”
Howell is an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
“I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here,” she said. “The order casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportions across the legal profession.”
Perkins Coie’s suit calls Trump’s order “an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice.” The “plain purpose” of the order is “to bully those who advocate points of view that the president perceives as adverse to the views of his administration,” the suit said.
“The very goal” of the order, the suit said, is to “chill future lawyers from representing particular clients.”
A fact sheet accompanying Trump’s order cited suits filed against the administration by Perkins Coie, “including one designed to reduce military readiness.” The sentence may be referring to a suit challenging a ban on transgender service members, according to the suit filed in federal court for the District of Columbia.
The order also accused Perkins Coie of working with “activist donors, including George Soros,” to overturn voter ID laws and other election laws. And the order said the firm racially discriminated against its attorneys and job applicants when it “announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories.” Suits have since forced change, according to the White House fact sheet.
The order directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to review the practices of “representative large, influential or industry leading law firms” for compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The review should include whether the firms reserve certain positions for people on a discriminatory basis and whether they promote people and provide access to events on a discriminatory basis.
Perkins Coie countered that the firm does not discriminate, but it does foster an environment in which lawyers from diverse backgrounds can thrive. The firm also said it has a “bipartisan ethos” reflected by the fact that four of its partners were recently confirmed as federal judges—split between appointees of Trump and former President Joe Biden.
The suit also noted that the lawyer who hired Fusion GPS in 2016, Marc Elias, is no longer with the firm. Elias hired Fusion GPS to help with representation of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
The suit noted that Trump has also suspended security clearances for Covington & Burling lawyers for their representation of former special counsel Jack Smith, who obtained indictments against Trump for allegedly retaining classified documents and seeking to overturn the 2020 election.
Since the March 6 order, several clients have informed Perkins Coie that they are ending or considering an end to their engagement of the firm, the suit said.
The suit claims that the order:
• Violates constitutional separation of powers because it “in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct.”
• Violates procedural due process because it punishes the entire firm for the conduct of a handful of lawyers who are no longer with the firm, without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• Interferes with a substantive due process right to practice law.
• Denies equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment by singling out the firm.
• Constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment by punishing the firm for its work with clients and the legal positions that it has taken.
• Compels the disclosure of confidential information regarding Perkins Coie clients in violation of the First Amendment.
• Violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause by its vague description of prohibited diversity, equity and inclusion.
• Violates the right to counsel guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment by banning Perkins Coie lawyers from federal buildings and terminating its clients’ government contracts.
The firm is represented by Williams & Connolly in the suit, Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice. Court filings are available here.
Publications covering the suit include Law.com, Reuters, Above the Law and Bloomberg Law.
Updated March 13 at 9:35 a.m. to include information on the court hearing and the temporary restraining order.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
