A judge in Washington, D.C., took the Trump administration to the woodshed — and the annals of literature — with a forceful and final rejection of an executive order aimed at limiting the power and influence of one of the country’s top law firms.
In the underlying litigation, Perkins Coie, LLP sued over an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in early March accusing the firm of engaging in racially discriminatory hiring practices despite their commitment to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” principles, as well as “undermining democratic elections.”
The order suspended Perkins Coie employees’ security clearances and denied them access to government buildings. Finally, the court interpreted those actions as “retribution” for the plaintiff’s work, which included the firm’s high-profile representation of Hillary Clinton during her failed 2016 presidential campaign.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a five-page order and a 102-page memorandum opinion in favor of the plaintiffs. The court found the executive order “unlawful because it violates the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution” and thus “null and void.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to receive the most recent real-life crime stories directly to your inbox.
The first few lines of the court’s opinion are incisive and instructive about the government’s total loss in this case.
“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,'” according to Howell. “Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.”
While viewing the 45th and 47th presidents’ attacks on Perkins Coie as part of a “broader campaign” against disfavored law firms, the court slightly updates Shakespeare’s verse to reflect the current situation.
“In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’ EO 14230 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,” continues Howell.
The judge’s opinion paints a picture of a presidency adorned with and seeking power—and using the presidential prerogative to achieve evermore, albeit unconstitutionally.
“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,” the court’s ruling states.
The Supreme Court has stated that no official, regardless of rank, can dictate what is considered orthodox in politics or other areas of opinion. Government officials cannot use their power to punish or suppress dissenting speech. That, however, is precisely what is occurring here.”
In this case, Howell has consistently rejected the government’s efforts as a violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.
In mid-March, she issued a temporary restraining order based on a relatively modern literary reference to the Queen of Hearts in Lewis Carroll’s 1865 novel “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.”
During a hearing late last month, she described the executive order as “temper tantrum” behavior, “worthy of a 3-year-old.”
The judge dismissed the case after hearing motions for summary judgment. The court permanently enjoined the executive order, prohibiting the government from implementing or enforcing it “in any way.”
The judge’s constitutional analysis, while lengthy, reads like a simple decision. She views every aspect of the Perkins Coie executive order as a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.
“EO 14230, the accompanying fact sheet, and the context surrounding the Order’s issuance all 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 outcomes the President does not like, and represented clients challenging some “That is unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.”
Presidential chagrin is also prominent in the Fifth Amendment analysis, where the court suggested the issues were clear.
“Some of plaintiff’s current and former clients and employment practices are unpopular with President Trump and his administration — due to the speech and associations, real or perceived, reflected in those relationships and policies — and EO 14230 was issued to harm plaintiff,” the court’s decision continues
. “Under the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, however, settling personal vendettas by targeting a disliked business or individual for punitive government action is not a legitimate use of the powers of the U.S. government or an American President.”
However, the judge notes that the executive order had an impact on Perkins Coie’s clients as well. These effects resulted in a constitutional violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
“EO 14230 has already forced plaintiff’s clients to choose between using their chosen lawyers and facing potential consequences from the government due to who they have hired as counsel,” the judge’s opinion states. “Forcing plaintiff’s clients to make such a choice violates their Sixth Amendment rights.”
The court describes the Trump administration’s anti-law firm efforts as a “unprecedented attack” on US principles.
“The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era,” speculates Howell. In 1770, John Adams represented eight British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre.
He later claimed to have lost over half of his practice.When the Bill of Rights was ratified, these principles were written into the Constitution.”
