A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has temporarily halted enforcement of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that sought to penalize the law firm Perkins Coie by restricting its access to federal buildings and threatening government contracts for its clients.
The ruling, issued Wednesday, March 12, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, grants an injunction that freezes key provisions of Trump’s March 6 order, marking a significant legal setback for the former president.
Legal Challenge to Executive Authority
Perkins Coie, a high-profile law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and played a role in commissioning the controversial Steele dossier, sued the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies to challenge the executive order.
During the hearing, Judge Howell expressed serious concerns over the breadth of the executive action, stating:
“That’s pretty extraordinary power for the president to exercise. The idea that the president can ban a business from a federal building if it’s operating against U.S. interests sends little chills down my spine.”
The firm did not challenge all parts of the order, which also directed agency heads to suspend security clearances for Perkins Coie lawyers and investigate law firms for alleged racial discrimination.
Impact on Perkins Coie and Its Clients
The executive order has already had significant financial and reputational consequences for Perkins Coie. According to firm partner David Burman, the order presents an “existential risk” by disrupting interactions with federal agencies and jeopardizing government contracts for the firm’s top 15 clients, which collectively generated over $343 million in legal fees last year—nearly a quarter of Perkins Coie’s total revenue.
Burman also stated in a declaration filed with the court that some clients have severed ties with the firm, fearing repercussions from the federal government. One unidentified corporate client, which had paid over $1 million in legal fees for Perkins Coie’s defense in a federal enforcement action, moved its representation to another firm after being warned that Perkins Coie lawyers should not attend an agency meeting.
Burman also warned that continued client departures could lead to an exodus of the firm’s legal talent.
“Exceptional lawyers are the basis for our reputation and success. Every passing day increases our risk,” he wrote.
Government’s Defense and Future Implications
During the hearing, Chad Mizelle, the Justice Department’s chief of staff, dismissed the law firm’s allegations as speculative, arguing that clients may have left Perkins Coie for firms with closer ties to the administration rather than out of fear of government retaliation.
Trump’s executive order, Mizelle argued, falls within the “clear Article II authority” of the presidency, allowing the executive branch to determine whether certain individuals or companies pose national security risks.
Despite the court’s ruling, legal experts warn that the damage to Perkins Coie’s reputation may not be easily undone. George Conway, co-founder of the Lincoln Project, noted that “everyone in the government knows that the president does not like this particular law firm,” potentially deterring future clients.
John Morley, a Yale Law professor, emphasized the vulnerability of law firms when they become political targets.
“This isn’t like an ordinary business where it can go through a few lean years and come out as something smaller,” Morley said. “Law firms aren’t like that. They’re very fragile.”
The court’s ruling represents a significant first step in blocking Trump’s executive order, but ongoing litigation will determine the broader implications for Perkins Coie and similar firms facing political scrutiny.
Case Information
Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, D.D.C., 1:25-cv-00716, 3/12/25
For ongoing legal analysis and expert commentary, visit americanlawreporter.com.
