Judge strikes down 'unprecedented' Trump order targeting Perkins Coie law firm
WASHINGTON — A federal judge Friday struck down President Donald Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie in a blistering opinion calling the president's efforts "an unprecedented attack' on the U.S. judicial system.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a permanent injunction barring the enforcing of any part of Trump's order from March that focused on the firm's representation of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and its work with billionaire donor George Soros.
"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,'" Howell wrote.
"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," Howell wrote, referencing John Adams' decision to represent eight British soldiers charged with murder in connection with the Boston Massacre.
She said Trump's order 'violates the Constitution and is thus null and void.'
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday night.
Trump's executive order limited Perkins Coie employees' access to government buildings, revoked security clearances at the firm, and ordered the heads of all federal agencies to terminate contracts with the firm and refrain from hiring employees who worked at the firm.
Howell had grilled Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson at a hearing over the measure last week, and Lawson was unable to answer basic questions about the other firms that had reached deals with the White House to avoid their own executive orders.
Howell also used a footnote in Friday's order to criticize firms that took deals with the White House, writing that "some clients may harbor reservations about the implications of such deals for the vigorous and zealous representation to which they are entitled from ethically responsible counsel, since at least the publicized deal terms appear only to forestall, rather than eliminate, the threat of being targeted in an Executive Order."
Pointing to Trump's "multi-year history of lodging public attacks" on Perkins Coie and "his promises during the 2024 campaign to act on his displeasure" toward the firm if he won further demonstrates that the executive order "was issued to seek retribution against plaintiff for the Firm's representation of clients in political campaigns or litigation, about which President Trump expressed disapproval, dating back to 2017," Howell wrote.
"This purpose amounts to no more than unconstitutional retaliation for plaintiff's First Amendment protected activity," Howell wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
26 minutes ago
- The Sun
Trump doesn't rule out arresting California Gov Gavin Newsom over LA riot chaos and says he had to save city from mob
DONALD Trump refused to rule out arresting California Governor Gavin Newsom over his handling of the Los Angeles riots. The pair have been trading blows since Newsom slammed Trump's decision to send federal troops into the city to quell immigration raid rioters. 8 8 8 8 Trump has sent around 4,000 of the National Guard and 700 Marines into LA, where they have clashed violently with protesting mobs and been given to make arrests The Governor accused Trump of manufacturing the flare-ups, saying his actions were "akin to authoritarian regimes" - and was dismissed as "incompetent" in return. He vowed his state is "suing Donald Trump" for "creating fear and terror to [...] violate the US constitution". Trump has previously toyed with the idea of arresting Newsom, and refused to rule it out in an interview with the New York Pos t. Trump's border czar Tom Homan had warned that anyone, including public officials, would be arrested if they obstructed federal law enforcement. On Sunday, Newsom goaded Trump over the threats, saying in a MSNBC interview: "Come after me, arrest me. Let's just get it over with, tough guy." Asked directly if he is going to arrest and charge Gavin Newsom, Trump said: "Well, he's not doing a good job. "In theory you could, I guess. It's almost like a dissipation of duties. Nobody's ever seen anything like it." Before Wednesday's interview, Newsom shared his thoughts on the arrest threats. He said: "The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. Anti-ICE raid protest carnage spreads across US as Texas deploys National Guard & LA declares curfew after riots "This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism." Trump follow up with a brutal takedown of Newsom's record in office - which included blaming him for the devastating wild fires that ravaged parts of LA in January. Trump said: "First he had his wildfires that burned down half the place [...] I told them water, get the water from the pacific north west [...] I got the water to go down. "They were using environmental as a reason not to give water. They were protecting a certain type of fish - which by the way has not done well. "He should have done it [redirected the water supply] in my first term. You wouldn't have had the fires." 8 8 8 Interviewer Miranda Devine then asked about a much-disputed phone call between Trump and Newsom - with each swearing to a different version of events. The President claimed he rang to discuss sending in National Guardsmen - but Newsom branded him a "stone-cold liar". Newsom insists he "kept trying to bring up" the situation in LA, but that Trump veered onto other subjects. However, Trump doubled down today and said: "Of course I did [talk about it]. The phone call was to deploy the troops. "I said: 'You're city is burning down, your state is in bad trouble.' "All I want is him to do a good job [...] he's doing a poor job." In an effort to checkmate Newsom, Trump brandished a screenshot showing a 16-minute call between the two at 1:23am on June 7. Newsom does not dispute that the call happened - but maintains that Trump "never once brought up the National Guard". Trump landed other personal jibes, mocking the California High-Speed Rail project which has run over budget and claiming that, without him, Newsom "wouldn't have LA". He said: "Between the fires and the riots, there would be nothing left. You have a governor that's incompetent, a mayor that's highly incompetent." 8
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The treaty Gibraltar wants, for the future we all need
For over five years, Gibraltar has been at the centre of one of the most complex, technical, and geopolitically sensitive negotiations undertaken by the United Kingdom and the European Union since Brexit. The process has consumed me. It has occupied close to half of my time in elected office, taken over almost every waking hour of the last five years, and, in truth, deprived the people of Gibraltar of their Chief Minister in the way they are used to having him, that is, from fixing housing and parking complaints to defending their sovereignty in the international arena. For much longer than I would have wanted, I have been behind closed doors, in physical or virtual boardrooms, working through the details of a document that will shape the next generation of our people. It has been a relentless, exhausting endeavour. Throughout this time, the UK and Gibraltar teams have worked together seamlessly, 'hand in glove', without a flash of daylight between us. We have worked in close partnership with both Conservative and Labour prime ministers and foreign secretaries; from Dominic Raab, Liz Truss and James Cleverly to David Cameron and now David Lammy. What we have negotiated is not the product of fragmented agendas, but the position of a unified British family determined to find a solution worthy of our people. Without a treaty, Gibraltar could be staring down the barrel of a hard border, marked by endless queues, disrupted supply chains, and a deeply uncertain future for many of our businesses. Our hospitals and elderly care homes would face chronic understaffing, and the surrounding region would suffer the almost certain loss of employment for many of the 15,000 cross-border workers who depend on Gibraltar's economy to support their families. The services we deliver to our people would all come under strain. Our public finances would be pushed to the brink. The self-governing Gibraltar we have built would be diminished, replaced by something poorer, more isolated, more inward-looking, and ultimately less able to thrive as a proud, British European Territory. Instead, we now stand at the threshold of something remarkable, and not just for Gibraltar, but also for the United Kingdom, for Spain, and for Europe and our people. Something bold. Something forward looking and hopeful. Something that finally breaks free of the negative inertia that has defined too much of our recent past. Unlocking potential across borders This is politics at its most elevated. The service-led principle of working for our people's benefit and not the performative personal antagonism that too often infects public life. Real, hard graft that overcomes challenges to deliver progress. This is the kind of result our people demand when they voice distrust and decry the political 'establishment'. Our Spanish and EU counterparts, for their part, have brought to the table a seriousness of purpose that also reflects the gravity of the moment. They, too, have recognised that this treaty is not merely about fluidity of movement, but about unlocking human and economic potential across borders. Make no mistake: the treaty that is now within reach is not one that the Gibraltarians have been forced to accept. Our people voted for us to have a mandate to turn our New Year's Eve agreement of 2020 into a UK/EU agreement/treaty. So we say 'yes' to this agreement, but not because we don't know how to say 'no' when we have to. We did so, emphatically, in 2002, when we triggered a referendum to reject Jack Straw's proposal of joint sovereignty with Spain, and I am just as adamant today that this treaty will not in any way compromise British sovereignty over Gibraltar. That will be set out, black upon white, in the treaty when it is published. It is a legal undertaking given by both sides in clear and unequivocal terms. So to be clear: in this treaty we have not ceded any control of Gibraltar to any authority. Just like today, only Gibraltar will decide who enters Gibraltar – exactly as we agreed in 2020 when Dominic Raab was foreign secretary and Boris Johnson was prime minister. This treaty unleashes the potential to usher in a new era. One in which we move beyond the tired narratives of the past on constant sovereignty disputes, towards a future defined by hope, cooperation and shared prosperity. It will pave the way for better jobs, more investment and lasting stability for Gibraltar and the wider region. It can deliver more harmonious human relations and a better quality of life for all our people. When you read it, I ask that you to look up from the pages of this treaty and see that better reality as it peers back at us from the future. This will be the treaty Gibraltar wants. It will be a treaty the UK and the EU can be proud of. And it will be a treaty that will propel us all to the better future politicians are elected to deliver. When the time comes, back Gibraltar and its proudly British people by backing the Gibraltar treaty.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Why Trump could be the X factor in New Jersey: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Steve Kornacki looks ahead to the general election in New Jersey after last night's gubernatorial primaries. Peter Nichols previews this weekend's military parade in Washington, which occurs against the backdrop of immigration protests around the country. And Andrea Mitchell examines the ripple effects of the new travel ban. — Adam Wollner The Trump factor looms over New Jersey's newly set race for governor By Steve Kornacki The matchup for New Jersey's gubernatorial election is set, but looming over the contest will be a name that won't be on any ballot: Donald Trump. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who secured the Democratic nomination in Tuesday's primary, is already running ads that attack Republican Jack Ciattarelli for his ties to the president. Ciattarelli, who was also the GOP's nominee in 2021, romped to victory in his party's primary after successfully cultivating Trump's support. In focusing on Trump, Democrats have history on their side. New Jersey voters have a strong tendency to elect governors from the party that doesn't control the White House. This has been the case in all but two races over the past four decades. Plus, Democrats have run this playbook successfully in New Jersey before. Eight years ago, during Trump's first term, Gov. Phil Murphy scored a 14-point win over Republican Kim Guadagno. Murphy sought to tie Guadagno to Trump, whose approval rating in New Jersey that fall stood at just 33%. (Murphy was also aided by the cratering popularity of outgoing Republican Gov. Chris Christie.) Republicans are counting on the Trump factor playing differently this time around. And, at least for now, there are some key variables they can point to with optimism. One is the result of last year's presidential race, when Trump lost New Jersey by 6 points to Kamala Harris. That was a far cry from his 16-point loss in 2020 and his 14-point defeat in 2016. From the outset of the 2017 gubernatorial race, it was obvious that Trump would be a major electoral liability for the GOP. That's not as clear this time around. In fact, a PIX11/Emerson College poll conducted a few weeks ago showed Trump with a 47% job approval rating in New Jersey. That's far higher than he fared during the 2017 campaign, or for that matter, at any point during his first term. It's also higher than the 40% approval rating for Murphy, who is term-limited and provides Ciattarelli with his own opportunity to tie his opponent to an unpopular leader. There's also some history Republicans can point to. Democrats have controlled the New Jersey governorship for two consecutive terms now, with Sherrill seeking to make it three. This is the fifth time since 1981 that one of the two parties has tried for a third straight term. They all failed. Bridget Bowman and Ben Kamisar have five key takeaways from Tuesday's results. Adam Noboa breaks down how each of the candidates in the crowded Democratic field fared on their home turf. Julie Tsirkin, Olympia Sonnier and Bridget explore how Ciattarelli is now attempting to pivot to the general election. By Peter Nicholas President Donald Trump is getting the parade he wanted showcasing America's military power — but he'll also be getting mass protests exposing the nation's partisan divisions. The tanks and artillery launchers rolling through Washington on Saturday will honor the Army's 250th anniversary, which falls on the day Trump turns 79. But in Washington and in all 50 states, organizers are scheduled to stage protests that could dwarf the parade in size. A coalition of pro-democracy, labor and liberal activists is arranging a full day of counterprogramming to make the case that Trump is hijacking the Army celebration to venerate himself. The parade is happening at a fraught moment when Trump has drawn the military — among the nation's most trusted institutions — into a tense standoff in Los Angeles over his aggressive efforts to deport people living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration this week activated about 700 Marines to help quell demonstrations over his immigration enforcement methods, despite warnings from California officials that he is inflaming the situation. ICE is preparing to deploy its Special Response Teams to five cities run by Democratic leaders, according to two sources familiar with the planning of the future operations. The Trump administration is telling immigration judges — who report to the executive branch and are not part of the independent judiciary — to dismiss pending cases as a tactic for speeding up arrests. During an interview with NBC's 'Nightly News' anchor Tom Llamas, White House border czar Tom Homan said that protests in Los Angeles are making immigration raids more 'difficult' and more 'dangerous.' Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott said he'll deploy the National Guard across the state 'to ensure peace and order' ahead of a planned protest in San Antonio. California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom warned that 'democracy is under assault' in a speech blasting Trump's immigration tactics. A federal grand jury indicted Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., on charges stemming from a confrontation with law enforcement at an ICE detention center in Newark last month. The way Trump has responded to protests in California is very different than how he treated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. By Andrea Mitchell Little noticed amid the uproar over the ICE raids in Los Angeles this week is the imposition of a travel ban 2.0 — a retooled version of President Donald Trump's first-term policy, modified to avoid legal challenges. 'We want to keep bad people out of our country,' Trump said. The last time around, the Trump White House had to rewrite the proposed ban three times before it passed Supreme Court muster. This time, the administration released fact sheets to show they were singling out countries whose citizens had high rates of overstaying their visas or don't properly screen their citizens for terrorism, not because most of the 12 countries banned are in Africa or the Middle East — prompting accusations of racial motivation, which would be unconstitutional. While not facing immediate legal challenges, the decision to bar travelers from Afghanistan in particular is outraging many U.S. veterans, including Trump supporters, who say they could not have survived the war without their Afghan translators. They say the U.S. is abandoning its Afghan allies and their families, who are being attacked, imprisoned and, in some cases, tortured by the Taliban for their past association with the U.S. Shawn VanDiver, president of #AfghanEvac, a coalition of U.S. veterans and advocacy groups, told me: 'The Taliban has made it very clear through their actions, not their words, what's going to happen to them. We get photos and videos every week of people being hunted down and killed.' We met an Afghan man who worked as a translator with the U.S. military for seven years who we can't identify without putting his family at risk. He got a special visa to come to the U.S, became a citizen and enlisted in the Marines to return to Afghanistan for another tour in Helmand Province. He spent years trying to bring his siblings and aging parents to the U.S. from Afghanistan to escape retaliation. They were approved last December and told to prepare to travel within days. Now the travel ban has shut the door. He told me when Trump announced the ban, 'For the first week, I couldn't go to work. I laid in bed, I was shocked for a week.' He added, 'I want to see my parents. They're getting old and I feel so bad. I cannot forgive myself if they pass and I can't see them.' He blames himself. But critics of the travel ban say it's the U.S. that went back on its word — something they warn future allies will remember when America wants their help.
