A federal judge on Friday ruled that an executive order signed by President Donald Trump targeting a law firm that represented his 2016 presidential opponent was unconstitutional.
US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the executive order targeting Perkins Coie violated the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, calling it a “blunt exercise of power” that “is not a legitimate use of the powers of the U.S. government or an American President”
“The U.S. Constitution affords critical protections against Executive action like that ordered in EO 1423,” Howell, referring to the executive order, wrote in her 100-plus page opinion. “Government officials, including the President, may not ‘subject … individuals to ‘retaliatory actions’ after the fact for having engaged in protected speech.’”
US Attorney General Pam Bondi looks on during her first press conference at the Justice Department in Washington, DC, on February 12, 2025.
The firm, which represented Hillary Clinton in 2016 and was involved in voting rights litigation that Trump opposed, was one of several law firms to sue over Trump’s executive orders that took aim at the firms’ security clearances, their access to federal officials and the contractor relationships their clients have with the government.
Perkins Coie and other firms previously secured emergency rulings pausing parts of the Trump directives, but Howell’s ruling Friday night was the first to strike down an executive order targeting a law firm in its entirety and to do so on a permanent basis.
Howell, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, quotes William Shakespeare, John Adams and the Bill of Rights as she railed against Trump’s directives.
“In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’” she wrote, referring to a line from Shakespeare’s “Henry VI,” the executive order “takes the approach of ‘Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,’ sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.”
“Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion,’” she said.
Howell sided with the firm in finding that the order amounted to unconstitutional retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment. She also found it was unconstitutional in how vaguely it was written and in the lack of due process in how it was rolled out. Additionally, she concluded that it violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendment for how it interfered with a client’s right to choose counsel.
“EO 14230, the accompanying fact sheet, and the context surrounding the Order’s issuance each express President Trump’s disapproval of plaintiff’s First Amendment activity and demonstrate that EO 14230 targeted plaintiff because the Firm expressed support for employment policies the President does not like, represented clients the President does not like, represented clients seeking litigation results the President does not like, and represented clients challenging some of the President’s actions, which he also does not like,” the judge wrote. “That is unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.”
