Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Order Against Perkins Coie Law Firm

The firm had participated in the production of the Steele dossier, which was used to push the disproven Trump–Russia narrative in 2016.

The office of the law firm Perkins Coie in Washington on April 10, 2025. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on May 2 struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order on revoking government contracts of law firm Perkins Coie. The order also forbids the Trump administration from canceling the federal security clearances of that firm’s attorneys.

Howell ruled that the order violated free speech and due process. It was the first time a judge had decided the legal merits of executive actions targeting lawyers and law firms involved with Trump’s political opponents and investigations against him.

The Department of Justice is able to appeal the ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In 2016, Perkins Coie LLP, representing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, played a part in the production of the Steele dossier, an intelligence document used at that time to push allegations that Trump had colluded with Russia to steal the presidential election.

Those allegations were later disproven, as Trump had maintained all along, but the reputational damage was already done.

On March 6, Trump issued an order referring to the firm’s role in the creation of the dossier, which he called “dangerous and dishonest.” The order also accused Perkins Coie of practicing racial discrimination in its hiring practices through the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

After Perkins Coie filed suit, the Department of Justice asked Howell to recuse herself from the case, alleging she had publicly demonstrated anti-Trump bias. Howell declined to do so, calling the allegations a “rhetorical strategy of ad hominem attack.”

In court, Howell questioned government attorney John Lawton for two hours about the constitutionality of the executive order, which she characterized as “retaliation” for the firm’s role in creating the dossier.

Howell said that nine other law firms had made deals with the Trump administration to avoid the scrutiny Perkins Coie was facing. In one case, she said, the firm Paul/Weiss had an executive order against it rescinded, after agreeing to provide $40 million in free legal work to the administration.

She repeatedly questioned Lawton about details of those agreements, but he said he was not privy to those discussions.

Howell compared the revocation of the security clearances to the “Red Scare,” a period in U.S. politics when some were punished based on the accusation of being communist.

“Is this a callback to the McCarthy era?” she asked.

Lawton said the president has “inherent discretion” regarding the firms the government contracts with and who should hold security clearances.

“The essential factor is trust in the holder” of those clearances, he said.

“And $40 million in legal services is enough to gain that trust?” the judge asked.

She also took issue with the government’s accusation of “racist hiring practices” and its decision to launch an Equal Opportunity Employment Commission review of Perkins Coie.

“Why does the administration view those three words as dirty?” she asked, referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Howell also said the timing of the review was suspect, noting that it was launched after Perkins Coie decided to sue rather than make a deal as other firms had done.