On March 12, 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a temporary restraining order that halted parts of President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie, a prominent law firm with deep ties to Democratic politics. The order, signed by Trump on March 6, sought to suspend the security clearances of Perkins Coie attorneys, limit their access to federal buildings, and disrupt the firm’s business with government contractors—actions the administration justified by citing the firm’s past work for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and its diversity policies. Judge Howell’s ruling has sparked intense debate, with critics calling it judicial overreach and supporters hailing it as a defense of constitutional principles.
The Executive Order and Its Targets
Trump’s executive order, titled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” accused the firm of “dishonest and dangerous activity” that undermined national security and democratic processes. Specifically, it pointed to Perkins Coie’s role in hiring Fusion GPS during the 2016 election, which produced the controversial Steele dossier alleging ties between Trump and Russia. The dossier, later criticized as containing unverified claims, has long been a lightning rod for Trump and his allies, who view it as the genesis of the “Russia hoax” that plagued his first term. The order also attacked the firm’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices, claiming they amounted to illegal racial discrimination.
The punitive measures were sweeping: suspend security clearances for Perkins Coie lawyers, bar their access to federal facilities, and direct agencies to terminate contracts with the firm or its clients. Trump framed the move as part of a broader mission to “end the weaponization of government” against political opponents, a promise he reiterated during the order’s signing in the Oval Office. Perkins Coie, a Seattle-founded firm with over 1,200 attorneys, has represented high-profile clients, including tech giants and Democratic campaigns, making it a significant target in Trump’s escalating feud with the legal establishment.
The Lawsuit and Howell’s Ruling
Perkins Coie wasted no time fighting back. On March 11, the firm filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., arguing that the executive order was an unconstitutional act of retaliation violating its First Amendment rights to free speech and association, as well as its Fifth Amendment due process protections. The firm claimed the order had already inflicted severe financial damage, with clients—many of whom rely on government contracts—terminating relationships or threatening to do so. One partner, David Burman, warned that the order posed an “existential risk” to the firm, which earned over $343 million from its top 15 clients last year alone.
Judge Howell, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2010, heard the case the next day. In a dramatic ruling from the bench, she granted a temporary restraining order blocking key provisions of Trump’s directive—specifically, those limiting access to federal buildings and affecting government contracts. However, she left intact the provision allowing a review of the firm’s security clearances, noting Perkins Coie had not directly challenged that aspect in its initial request.
Howell’s reasoning was sharp and unequivocal. She described the executive order as “retaliatory in nature,” arguing that it sent a “chilling message” to the legal profession by punishing attorneys for representing clients or advancing views the administration disliked. “Such a circumstance threatens the very foundation of our legal system,” she said, emphasizing that the president cannot wield federal power to “bring the government down on his political opponents.” Howell expressed alarm at the broader implications, warning that the order’s “blizzard proportion” effect could intimidate lawyers nationwide from taking on controversial cases or clients.
The Government’s Defense
The Trump administration, represented by Chad Mizelle, acting associate attorney general and a close ally of Attorney General Pam Bondi, defended the order as a legitimate exercise of executive authority. Mizelle argued that the president holds unreviewable power to determine who can be trusted with national secrets, a bedrock principle tied to national security. When Howell pressed him on whether this logic could extend to targeting any law firm—hypothetically even Williams & Connolly, which represents Perkins Coie in the suit—Mizelle doubled down, insisting the president’s discretion in such matters is beyond judicial oversight.
Critics of the administration, however, saw this as a flimsy pretext. Perkins Coie’s attorney, Dane Butswinkas, dismissed the national security justification as a “red herring,” accusing Trump of punishing the firm for its free speech and legal advocacy. Legal scholars echoed this skepticism, noting the lack of precedent for a president targeting a private law firm with such sweeping measures over its client list or internal policies.
Reactions and Implications
The ruling ignited a firestorm of reactions. On X, Trump supporters decried Howell as an “Obama-appointed, Trump-hating” judge engaging in “judicial tyranny” to protect the “Deep State.” Posts accused her of undermining the will of the people and shielding Perkins Coie, which they linked to the discredited Steele dossier. Meanwhile, legal experts and civil liberties advocates praised Howell’s decision as a critical check on executive overreach. Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace called it part of Trump’s broader attack on the rule of law, though he doubted it would paralyze the legal system entirely.
For Perkins Coie, the temporary reprieve offers breathing room but not a full victory. The firm still faces the potential loss of security clearances, a process Howell’s order did not halt. Moreover, the damage to its reputation and client base may persist, as companies wary of Trump’s wrath reconsider their ties to the firm. Janet Stanton, a law firm consultant, warned of a possible “run on the bank” effect, where client defections trigger lawyer exits, threatening the firm’s stability.
A Pattern of Retribution?
This isn’t Trump’s first salvo against law firms he perceives as adversaries. In February, he issued a similar order targeting Covington & Burling, which represents former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who prosecuted Trump in two criminal cases. That order, less expansive than the Perkins Coie directive, also faced legal challenges. Together, these actions suggest a pattern of using executive power to settle scores with legal foes—a strategy that tests the boundaries of presidential authority and the independence of the judiciary.
As the case moves forward, Howell’s temporary order is just the opening chapter. Perkins Coie has vowed to continue its legal fight, calling the executive order “patently unlawful.” The administration, meanwhile, shows no signs of backing down, with Trump hinting at targeting more firms he deems “dishonest.” The clash raises profound questions about the balance of power, the role of lawyers in a polarized democracy, and whether the courts can—or should—restrain a president determined to wield government as a weapon against his enemies.
For now, Judge Howell’s ruling stands as a bold assertion that even a president’s broad powers have limits. Whether it holds, and how it shapes Trump’s agenda, will reverberate far beyond Perkins Coie’s offices.
