When the Law Fights Back: Perkins Coie, Free Speech, and a Presidential Power Check
In a major legal rebuke to executive overreach, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell issued a powerful ruling last week striking down former President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order targeting the prestigious law firm Perkins Coie. The order, which suspended the firm’s security clearance and ended its federal contracts, was framed around the firm’s prior affiliations with Hillary Clinton and donors like George Soros.
But the court wasn’t buying it.
In a sharply worded decision that underscored the vital role of attorney independence, free speech, and the right to counsel, Judge Howell declared the executive action unconstitutional, likening it to political retaliation cloaked as national security.
“In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’ [the order] takes the approach of ‘Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,’” Howell wrote, casting Trump’s move as a blatant weaponization of presidential power against adversarial legal voices.
📌 Background: The Executive Order That Sparked Legal Uproar
Trump’s March executive order marked a disturbing escalation in his longstanding feud with what he calls the “legal elite.” Citing Perkins Coie’s work for Democratic campaigns and liberal donors, the order suspended the firm’s access to government contracts and national security information—an unprecedented step.
It sent shockwaves across the legal industry. Multiple law firms reportedly entered into quiet agreements with the administration to avoid similar punitive action. Among them, prominent names like Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey are also challenging the order’s legality in court.
Judge Howell’s ruling is the first summary judgment granted in these parallel lawsuits, setting the stage for broader implications on constitutional rights, attorney independence, and executive overreach.
⚖️ Key Legal Grounds: Free Speech and Right to Counsel
Howell’s opinion reinforces two foundational principles:
- Freedom of Speech: The executive order was deemed retaliatory, targeting Perkins Coie not for legal wrongdoing, but for its associations and advocacy—a protected domain under the First Amendment.
- Right to Counsel: Clients have the constitutional right to retain legal representation without political interference. The order, by attempting to silence or punish firms based on political alignment, undermines this core legal protection.
“Some clients may harbour reservations about the implications of such deals for the vigorous and zealous representation to which they are entitled,” Howell warned, calling into question whether such pressure compromises legal ethics and loyalty.
🔍 Legal Ethics Meets Political Power
This case is more than just a political scuffle; it’s a constitutional test of the balance between executive authority and the independence of the legal profession.
Judge Howell’s criticism of the firms that complied with the administration’s terms—perhaps out of concern for their staff or clients—highlights a deeper ethical dilemma. Should law firms ever agree to political constraints to preserve business?
This moment also revives age-old questions around:
- Zealous representation versus political appeasement
- Client autonomy in choosing counsel
- Government intrusion into private legal affairs
👨⚖️ New Legal Entrant: Abbe Lowell Enters the Fight
In a direct response to Trump’s legal maneuvering, Abbe Lowell, a veteran Washington criminal defense attorney, announced the formation of Lowell & Associates. The firm’s mission? Represent clients “unlawfully and inappropriately targeted by politicized investigations.”
Lowell, whose high-profile clientele includes Hunter Biden and Jared Kushner, is joined by Brenna Trout Frey, a former Skadden attorney who resigned in protest of Skadden’s $100 million deal with Trump.
Their partnership signals a growing legal movement to challenge politically motivated actions and defend the rule of law against executive overreach.
🧠 Takeaways for Legal Professionals & Students
- Judicial Oversight Matters: This ruling exemplifies how courts serve as a bulwark against unchecked executive action.
- Ethical Lawyering in a Polarized Era: Firms must navigate increasing political pressure without compromising on client representation or professional integrity.
- Constitutional Protections Apply to Lawyers, Too: Attorneys are not immune from political targeting—but the Constitution provides vital safeguards.
- Expect More Legal Pushback: Other firms sanctioned under similar orders are pursuing legal relief, and Howell’s ruling could bolster their cases.
📝 Final Thoughts
In the face of political interference, the judiciary is once again asserting its role as the guardian of constitutional rights. This case is not just about Perkins Coie—it’s a warning to any administration that might seek to use its power to silence opposition, including those in black robes or pinstripe suits.
#RuleOfLaw #PerkinsCoie #LegalEthics #FreeSpeechMatters #RightToCounsel #ExecutiveOverreach #TrumpVsLawyers #LawFirmIndependence #USConstitution #LegalProfessionWatch
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment