In a post made on social media platform Truth Social on April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump mentioned that he was suing law firm Perkins Coie before disparaging the assigned judge. Perkins Coie was indeed in court facing Justice Department attorneys, but not because they were being sued. Rather, it was Trump's executive orders that were under fire in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington, D.C.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell spent most of the session questioning a Justice Department attorney about Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie and other law firms by taking away their ability to get government contracts or enter federal buildings. While she didn't immediately issue a judgment, Judge Howell cited an expert who likened Trump's retributory strikes against firms that opposed him as a chilling echo of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the Red Scare tactics he employed in the 1950s to punish his political rivals.
Orders, Orders Everywhere
Initially criticizing President Barack Obama for his use of executive orders, it didn't take long for Trump to embrace them. After issuing 220 of them during his first term, Trump already has 137 under his belt during the first 100 days of his second administration.
Frequently pushing at the borders of executive power, a significant number of Trump's executive orders have been challenged in court. Some have not held up under legal scrutiny and were deemed unconstitutional.
Declaring that the firms were national security threats and had acted in ways that were "inconsistent with the interests of the United States," Trump's executive orders targeted five law firms that included Perkins Coie and WilmerHale. The firms had their security clearances revoked, were blocked from seeking government contracts, and found themselves under review for their hiring practices.
The named firms had either done work for Trump's political rivals or opposed him in previous legal proceedings. Nine other powerful firms capitulated to the threat of being the subject of an executive order, offering over $1 billion combined in free legal work representing the administration's interests and agenda.
Several hundred law firms backed Perkins Coie's choice to fight Executive Order 14230 in court. While being heard in separate trials before different judges, both Perkins Coie and WilmerHale held that Trump's executive orders against them were unconstitutional. Having already secured temporary relief from some of the orders' provisions in March, the firms were looking to have the orders completely struck down and rulings made in their favor.
History Will Take the Pen on That, Not Me
The proceedings veered in an unexpected direction as most of the session involved Judge Howell asking for clarifications and explanations from Justice Department attorney Richard Lawson. The judge seemed perplexed and irritated by Lawson's lack of knowledge on many aspects of the order.
Saying the the government had put the cart in front of the horse, the judge expressed concern over blanket security revocations being issued before any actual investigation were conducted. Lawson was unable to answer most of her queries. This included who was conducting the reviews, which agencies were involved, the names of any of the people at Perkins Coie who were identified as security risks, if there was a set of written guidelines, and the status of any reviews.
Judge Howell also questioned the administration's treating of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as "dirty words" and questioned why certain firms like Perkins Coie were singled out for embracing the Mansfield Rule but hundreds of others that also did weren't. She blasted a response to the March ruling by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi as a "temper tantrum" she'd expect from "a three-year-old, certainly not of the Department of Justice or OMB."
Dane Butswinkas,the attorney representing Perkins Coie, alleged that all of Trump's executive orders against law firms were based on nothing but a desire for retribution and capitulation. Noting that none of the attorneys named as the reason for security revocation currently work for Perkins Coie, Butwinkas claimed that Trump's national security justification was more a case of "national insecurity."
By asserting that firms can't use DEI, Butwinkas accused the Trump administration of viewpoint discrimination and the executive order as a ransom demand. He suggested the court didn't need to examine the lawfulness of the Mansfield Rule because Trump's orders were clearly retaliatory.
Judge Howell indicated she would rule on the motions, but no timeline was given. While there's a temporary block on denying contracts and access of federal buildings in place, security and DEI reviews are still in place.
Related Resources
- While Blocking Order Against Perkins Coie, Judge Likens Trump to the Queen of Hearts (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- What Are Law Firms Doing About Retaliation From the White House? (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
