A federal judge has temporarily blocked key parts of Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to penalize the law firm Perkins Coie, citing national security concerns as a pretext for political retaliation. The ruling, issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, criticized the order, calling it “chilling” and comparing it to a bill of attainder, which the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids.
Trump’s executive order, issued last week, imposed several severe restrictions on Perkins Coie:
✅ Revoked security clearances for the firm’s attorneys.
✅ Terminated all federal contracts with the firm.
✅ Banned government employees from engaging with its lawyers or allowing them into federal buildings.
The justification? Trump claimed Perkins Coie posed a national security threat due to its 2016 work for the Clinton campaign, when it hired Fusion GPS to produce the now-infamous dossier containing discredited claims about Trump’s ties to Russia.
However, Judge Howell ruled against these claims, issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) that halted most of the executive order. The only exception was the revocation of security clearances, as Perkins Coie had not contested that provision.
Howell strongly denounced Trump’s executive order, warning that it set a dangerous precedent.
🗨 “It sends little chills down my spine,” Howell remarked, highlighting the constitutional violation of using presidential powers to punish a specific entity without trial.
The Justice Department defended Trump’s decision, arguing that:
🔹 No direct harm had been caused to Perkins Coie yet.
🔹 Client losses were speculative, as businesses change firms for many reasons.
🔹 Presidents have unilateral authority to revoke security clearances and declare entities national security threats.
Howell disagreed, citing a 20-page declaration from a Perkins Coie partner, which included evidence that:
✔ A Justice Department lawyer refused to meet with him due to the executive order.
✔ Some clients explicitly cited the order as the reason for dropping Perkins Coie.
She also made an exception to the usual rule that financial loss does not qualify as irreparable harm, ruling that the firm’s reliance on federal government cases made client losses an existential threat.
Howell further questioned whether Trump’s order was politically motivated, noting that:
🔸 The lawyers involved in the Clinton campaign left Perkins Coie years ago.
🔸 Trump had previously sued Perkins Coie personally, but his lawsuit was dismissed entirely.
🔸 The executive order resembled an act of political retaliation, with taxpayer funds being used for a personal vendetta.
🗨 "This ground is a personal grievance that President Trump has already attempted to pursue in a personal lawsuit," Howell stated.
She further added:
🗨 "To the extent that this executive order appears to be an instance of President Trump using taxpayer dollars and government resources to pursue what is a wholly personal vendetta, advancing such political payback is not something in which the government has a cognizable interest."
Perkins Coie enlisted Williams & Connolly, a top-tier law firm known for challenging government overreach, to represent them in this case.
Initially, they reached out to Quinn Emanuel, a high-profile firm that has represented figures in Trump’s orbit, including:
However, Quinn Emanuel declined, fearing that taking the case could make them political targets just as they were growing in influence in Washington, D.C.
Other law firms have since considered filing amicus briefs to support Perkins Coie, reflecting broader industry concerns about executive overreach.
The temporary restraining order prevents most of Trump’s executive order from taking effect, but the Justice Department is expected to appeal. A more permanent ruling in the coming months will determine whether the order is struck down entirely.
This case could set a major precedent on executive power, political retaliation, and the rule of law—with far-reaching consequences for law firms, government contractors, and future administrations.
