By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge has blocked President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie, deeming it an unconstitutional infringement on clients’ right to counsel and the firm’s due process rights. The order, unprecedented in its attempt to punish a law firm for representing clients with opposing views, directed agencies to take actions including contract reviews, building access restrictions, and security clearance revocations. Judge Howell’s decision follows similar temporary restraining orders for other firms, and stands in contrast to deals struck by nine other law firms to avoid similar executive actions. The judge characterized the order as an attack on fundamental judicial principles, highlighting the firm’s penalization for representing clients and expressing views at odds with the President.
Read the original article here
Trump’s order against Perkins Coie, a prominent Washington D.C. law firm, has been struck down by a judge in a ruling that’s being described as far more than just a legal setback. The judge’s decision resonates with a powerful symbolic weight, illustrating a significant check on executive overreach.
The order itself represented an unprecedented attempt by a president to wield executive power against a law firm. It wasn’t simply a matter of disagreement; Trump directed various executive branch agencies to take adverse actions against Perkins Coie. These actions included reviewing client contracts for potential termination, barring firm personnel from federal buildings, and even revoking security clearances. This wasn’t just a legal battle; it was a direct assault on the independence of the legal profession.
The judge’s decision didn’t just overturn the order; it condemned the very approach. The language used in the ruling was strikingly strong, drawing a parallel between Trump’s actions and the infamous Shakespearean quote, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” The judge saw this as an attempt to eliminate a crucial check on power, a tactic as old as Shakespeare’s plays yet chillingly relevant in a modern context. This wasn’t just a technical legal argument; it was a condemnation of the underlying philosophy behind Trump’s actions.
The case highlights a broader pattern of behavior. Nine other law firms, facing similar threats, chose to settle with the administration, a decision that now looks questionable in light of this ruling. These firms, under pressure, avoided a legal battle, opting instead to make deals to avoid the consequences of Trump’s executive order. This raises questions about the chilling effect of such aggressive tactics on the legal profession’s ability to act independently.
The judge’s ruling wasn’t just about the specifics of the case against Perkins Coie; it served as a potent symbol of resistance against attempts to suppress dissent and silence critics. The firm’s decision to sue Trump, unlike the nine others who opted for settlements, served as an important act of defiance. This underscores the importance of challenging such executive overreach, even when it involves significant risk.
The ruling has broader implications for the balance of powers. It’s a stark reminder that the judiciary can and will act as a vital check on the executive branch. It’s a victory not just for Perkins Coie, but for the rule of law itself. The decision sets a precedent that could influence future cases involving similar attempts at executive overreach, potentially deterring similar actions by future administrations.
The strong language used in the judge’s decision, drawing on Shakespearean imagery, speaks volumes about the gravity of the situation. This wasn’t a mere legal technicality; it was a direct assault on the principles of American democracy and the independence of the legal system. The judge’s decision was a clear and unequivocal rejection of such tactics, a resounding affirmation of the rule of law.
The aftermath of this case is likely to be significant. It will undoubtedly lead to further discussion about the appropriate limits of executive power and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rule of law. It also raises questions about the decisions made by the nine law firms that avoided confrontation with the administration. Did they make a sound strategic choice, or did they inadvertently contribute to a climate of fear and self-censorship?
The judge’s decision, in its clarity and strength, has become a beacon for those defending the integrity of the legal profession and the core principles of American governance. The case, while seemingly focused on one firm, ultimately becomes a case for all of us committed to the rule of law and the independent operation of the judiciary. The legacy of this case will likely extend far beyond the specific details, shaping future debates about executive power and the critical role of independent legal counsel.
Finally, the entire episode underscores the importance of resistance to executive overreach and the potential consequences of choosing expediency over principle. The brave stand taken by Perkins Coie, culminating in a favorable court ruling, offers a crucial lesson for the legal profession and the broader public alike. The fight for justice and the rule of law is ongoing, and this victory serves as a powerful reminder of its continuing necessity.