A courtroom showdown between the Trump administration and a top American law firm — one that he penalized last week for its role in helping Secretary Clinton push Russia-related allegations against President Trump in 2016 — suggests escalating conflict between the 47th president and the behemoth known as “Big Law.”
On Wednesday a federal judge, Beryl Howell, granted an appeal from the firm of Perkins Coie requesting that an executive order against it be enjoined, or prevented from taking effect. It is now blocked, at least temporarily. Judge Howell reasoned that its terms amounted to a “pretty extraordinary power for the president to exercise,” and that its punitive nature “sends little chills down my spine.” She declined to block the entirety of the order, only the sections related to the ability of Perkins lawyers to access federal buildings and requiring government contractors to disclose any business ties with the firm.
In another case, which turned on the power of the president to fire federal employees, Judge Howell wrote that “a president who touts an image of himself as a ‘king’ or a ‘dictator,’ perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role.” Here, she compared Mr. Trump to the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland,” who was wont to declare “Off with their heads.” She insists that “cannot be the reality we are living.” The administration is likely to appeal.
Mr. Trump last week signed the executive order, with reporters watching, stripping Perkins Coie of its security clearance and ordering an end to any work it was doing for the government. The executive order cited work the firm did to commission opposition research on Mr. Trump — from the firm Fusion GPS — ahead of the 2016 election. The order also cites Perkins Coie’s aggressive policies of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
Perkins Coie filed its response — a lawsuit — on Tuesday, alleging injury to its constitutional rights and the pursuit of a policy that is “an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice” whose “plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration.” Attorney General Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, argued for the government before Judge Howell.
Two of the 47th president’s executive orders have targeted prestigious firms for their work with lawyers who have investigated him. The first was directed at Covington & Burling, for taking on Special Counsel Jack Smith as a pro bono client. The one at issue in this suit, “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” accuses the firm of “dishonest and dangerous activity” regarding Fusion GPS and also alleges that it “racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff.”
The order takes “steps … to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Perkins Coie” and directs agencies to restrict access to government buildings “when such access would threaten the national security of … the United States.” Its text explains, “In 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false ‘dossier’ designed to steal an election.” The order calls for an investigation by Ms. Bondi.
Perkins, though, hired the litigation specialists at Williams & Connolly to make the case in federal court at the District of Columbia that its “ability to represent the interests of its clients—and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all—are under direct and imminent threat.” The firm, which pulled in more than $1 billion in revenue last year, is suing a panoply of federal agencies and their leaders — including Ms. Bondi.
Perkins alleges that the aim of the order is to “chill future lawyers from representing particular clients,” and amounts to “retaliation for the firm’s association with, and representation of, clients that the President perceives as his political opponents.” In 2022 Mr. Trump filed a racketeering suit against Perkins and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. That was dismissed.
The firm acknowledges that one of its former partners, Michael Sussman, was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for passing on false information about the Trump campaign and Russia to the FBI but failing to disclose his connection to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.
Mr. Sussman did not deny the fact of the case, but insisted he did nothing illegal, and was acquitted by a jury. Another one of the firm’s former partners, Marc Elias, is a longtime Democratic rainmaker and consigliere to Mrs. Clinton who brokered Perkins’s engagement of Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now discredited Steele Dossier, which contained lurid and unverified allegations about Mr. Trump.
Perkins claims that the executive order is “an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood” and, because it evinces a judicial personality, “an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.” The suit also alleges that the administration has wounded the right to defense of counsel by declaring Perkins persona non grata and the “First Amendment rights of free expression and association” by punishing mere political disagreement.
Perkins explains that “it was known in Seattle” — where it began and is still headquartered — “as, if anything, a ‘Republican firm,’” but that now its attorneys “are drawn from all sides of the political spectrum, with most not politically active.” In the wake of the 2020 election, though, Perkins opposed many efforts by Mr. Trump to contest President Biden’s victory.
The firm argues that the harm inflicted by the executive order is not speculative and that “several clients have already terminated, or have communicated that they are considering terminating, their legal engagements with Perkins Coie.” It adds that “this is a rapidly evolving situation, which changes by the hour,” and that a “major government-contractor client for over 35 years withdrew its work from Perkins Coie in light of the Order.”
Mr. Trump’s order also accuses Perkins of discriminatory practices because of its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Perkins calls this “unconstitutionally vague” because it does not explain “whether it can hire, promote, staff or train employees who are racial minorities.” The firm asserts that it “does not have, and has never had, percentage quotas for hiring or promoting minorities.”
A page on the firm’s website, still online today, says that Perkins is “investing in the diversity pipeline” and “measuring and monitoring our progress and success.” The website also lists 11 different in-house “resource groups” for protected classes of employees, including transgender, “queer,” and “Latinx” employees. Prior to 2025, many clients expected firms they did business with to feature DEI programs.
Covington, which provided $140,000 in pro bono services to Mr. Smith, has not yet joined the suit. One of that firm’s partners, Peter Koski, now represents Mr. Smith in a personal capacity. Mr. Koski has had his security clearance revoked, and any government contracts with the firm have been abandoned. As Mr. Trump put Sharpie to paper, he christened the order “the deranged Jack Smith signing, or bill.”
Covington declares in a statement that it “serves as defense counsel to Jack Smith in his personal, individual capacity. We look forward to defending Mr. Smith’s interests and appreciate the trust he has placed in us to do so.”
