Judge blocks Trump admin from targeting Democratic law firm after attorneys warn of firm's demise
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order seeking to penalize Democrat-linked law firm Perkins Coie, siding with plaintiffs from the firm who argued that the order was unconstitutional and a violation of due process protections.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell came shortly after attorneys representing the law firm Perkins Coie filed an emergency lawsuit in federal court over the Trump administration's executive order, which called for all employees to be stripped of their security clearances, be banned from government buildings and would force the firm to terminate of all its contracts with government clients.
"It truly is life-threatening," Perkins Coie attorneys told the judge. "It will spell the end of the law firm."
They said that it would effectively force its business to a halt, and violated due process protections under the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Howell appeared to uphold this claim, noting at one point in the hearing that it "sends little chills down my spine" that the Trump administration moved to label the firm as a threat and deny them access to government entities and businesses.
Lawyers for Perkins Coie argued the executive order would be "like a tsunami waiting to hit the firm" in terms of damaging impact.
The order, signed by President Donald Trump last week, sought to penalize Perkins Coie, which has long represented Democratic-linked causes and candidates, including Trump's former opponent, Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 presidential election.
The firm also played a role in hiring Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm that commissioned the so-called "Steele Dossier" and published it shortly before the 2016 election.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, appeared in federal court to represent the Trump administration in the lawsuit. The hearing, and rare court appearance from Mizelle, a senior member of the U.S. attorney general's office, comes one week after Trump signed the executive order.
The order, titled "Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP," accused Perkins Coie of "dishonest and dangerous activity" that they alleged undermines "democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement," as well as "racially discriminating against its own attorneys and staff" through its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.
Trump told reporters last week it was an "absolute honor" to sign the order, adding that "weaponization" against a political opponent "should never be allowed to happen again."
However, Perkins Coie attorneys argue the Trump administration has done just that by targeting the firm.
"Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients," the lawsuit reads.
Attorneys representing Perkins Coie told Howell that roughly 25% of total firm revenue comes from its contracts with government clients, which they noted would be terminated by Trump's executive order.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
18 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court has 6 cases to decide, including birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the final days of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have six cases to resolve that were argued between January and mid-May. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The remaining opinions will be delivered Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts said. On Thursday, a divided court allowed states to cut off Medicaid money to Planned Parenthood amid a wider Republican-backed push to defund the country's biggest abortion provider. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Supreme Court ruling on patients rights' could devastate Planned Parenthood
Medicaid patients don't have a right to freely choose their medical provider, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday, in a case that carries major implications for Planned Parenthood. Why it matters: The first abortion-related case of President Trump 's second term could result in the defunding of Planned Parenthood, which derives a significant chunk of its funding from the safety net program and is the nation's biggest provider of abortion services. Driving the news: The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, stemmed from South Carolina's move to block Medicaid recipients from getting care at Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. The Trump administration backed South Carolina's position. The decision in favor of South Carolina, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by the court's other conservative justices, may embolden more states to remove Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri have already done so. It comes amid Trump administration efforts to withhold Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood affiliates. The sweeping GOP budget bill now being debated in Congress would also cut off Medicaid funding to the reproductive health group. Nearly half of patients who use Planned Parenthood health services have Medicaid coverage, according to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Shutting the provider out of Medicaid networks could effectively defund it — a longtime priority of conservative politicians and an explicit goal of Project 2025. Federal Medicaid funding is not used to pay for abortions with few exceptions. Less than half of states use their own dollars to cover abortion care under Medicaid. But defunding Planned Parenthood would not only further curtail abortion access. It would also diminish the availability of primary care services provided by the clinics, including STI and cancer screening, birth control prescriptions, vaccines and mental health help. What they're saying:"As far as Planned Parenthood and comparable providers are concerned, this case could be part of a one-two punch if Trump's Big Beautiful Bill passes," Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at University of California, Davis, wrote on X. "At a time when health care is already costly and difficult to access, stripping patients of their right to high-quality, affordable health care at the provider of their choosing is a dangerous violation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom," said Destiny Lopez, co-president and CEO of the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute.
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Qatar expects Iran-Israel ceasefire to hold
Qatar expects that the Israel-Iran ceasefire announced earlier this week will hold, government spokesperson Majed al-Ansari told NewsNation's Brian Entin on Thursday. 'Any ceasefire anywhere in the world is fragile. But we have great confidence in President Trump's push for this to happen. We have seen on the ground what the resolve of President Trump did,' al-Ansari said. 'And we do believe through his leadership and the work Qatar has been doing to mediate through both parties we will maintain this ceasefire and push to make it more sustainable,' he added. The full interview with al-Ansari will air later Thursday on Chris Cuomo's show. Entin and al-Ansari discussed the ceasefire, Trump's brokering role, Qatari intelligence on Iran's nuclear sites and if Americans should be fearful of Iran. Qatar reportedly helped broker the ceasefire by mediating with the Iranian government, while the U.S. worked to bring Israel to the table. It has also played a key role in mediating between Israel and Hamas over the course of the war in Gaza. The Gulf nation is a strategic U.S. ally and home to an Air Force base that Iran attempted to attack earlier this week. Qatari air defenses intercepted the attack. On Thursday, in his first public comments since the ceasefire, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed victory over Israel and the U.S., downplaying the extent of the damage from airstrikes from the two countries.
