Trump’s Attack On Perkins Coie Sends Chills Down My Spine

That’s what one federal judge said about the executive order targeting Perkins Coie—and I agree with her wholeheartedly.

Outside the New York offices of Perkins Coie (photo by David Lat).

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.

“It sends little chills down my spine. Why shouldn’t we be chilled by this?”

That’s what Judge Beryl Howell had to say at a Wednesday hearing about Executive Order 14230 aka “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” the executive order issued on March 6 by Donald Trump targeting Perkins Coie. The Order directs executive-branch officials to take numerous actions aimed at Perkins Coie and its personnel, including stripping them of security clearances and government contracts, barring them from federal property, and blackballing them from federal jobs.¹

On Tuesday, March 11, Perkins Coie filed a constitutional challenge to the Order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.). The 43-page complaint in Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) contains nine counts, alleging violations of due process, equal protection, First Amendment free-speech and associational rights, and the right to counsel, among other claims.²

Here’s the opening of the complaint, filed by a team of 14 lawyers from Williams & Connolly led by former W&C chair Dane Butswinkas:

This case concerns an Executive Order issued on March 6, 2025, entitled, “Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP” (“the Order”). The Order is an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice. 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.

Perkins Coie brings this case reluctantly. The firm is comprised of lawyers who advocate for clients; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients—and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all—are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied. The firm is committed to a resolute defense of the rule of law, without regard to party or ideology, and therefore brings this lawsuit to declare the Order unlawful and to enjoin its implementation.

Perkins Coie also sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to immediately enjoin most of the Order. On Wednesday, March 12, after a two-hour hearing, Judge Beryl Howell issued the requested TRO, blocking Sections 1, 3, and 5 of the Order.³

And Judge Howell didn’t hold back in her comments at the hearing. Here are some highlights, from The New York Times (gift link), The Washington Post (gift link), Reuters, and Law.com:

• The Order “threatens to significantly undermine our entire legal system and the ability of all people to access justice.”

• It is “a means of retaliating against Perkins Coie,” as well as Trump “using taxpayer dollars for a personal vendetta.”

• “I’m sure many in the legal profession are watching in horror about what Perkins Coie is going through here.”

Trump defenders might dismiss these remarks as the rantings of an “Obama judge.” But it’s harder for folks on the right to make ad hominem attacks against the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board (gift link):

Perkins Coie has shown it’s a partisan firm…. But Mr. Trump’s order is now targeting the law firm for representing clients Mr. Trump dislikes. He is trying to defenestrate Perkins Coie to intimidate elite law firms from representing his opponents or plaintiffs who challenge his policies. This violates a bedrock principle of American law, which is that even the worst clients deserve representation.

The WSJ editorial board’s criticism of the order stands in stark contrast to the silence from Perkins Coie’s fellow Biglaw firms. As Vivia Chen put it, “They’re ducking. Running for the hills…. It’s not a good look, and Biglaw knows it.”

Or consider the comments I received from Aric Press, the (happily retired) former editor in chief of The American Lawyer:

I am surprised and disappointed that the leaders of the largest law firms—the Am Law 100—have not individually or collectively denounced President Trump’s executive order punishing Perkins Coie for zealously representing its clients. Whatever we think of the firm or its clients, the president’s action is a threat to the rule of law and lawyers throughout our nation.

Now is not a time for silence. It is not enough to complain over lunch, or whisper off-the-record remarks to reporters, or issue knowing sighs at round tables convened to share the angst that comes from desperately monitoring the work of fellow millionaires. It is not enough to sit silently, hoping the administration won’t come after you.

If I can’t appeal on the basis of principle, think of it, if you must, as a commercial problem. Cowering is not a marketing strategy. If there was any doubt amongst corporate clients before, the events of the last fortnight have made it clear, again, that if you’re jammed up in Washington, D.C, the firm to call is Williams & Connolly.⁴

An old friend who chaired one of the great firms used to chide me that I was wrong about him and his mates. He’d tell me that I overestimated the firms, and expected too much in the way of their public service and professional commitments. “You think we’re better than we really are,” he’d say.

Once this was just a cocktail party argument. But now? Now, all of us are going to learn if our most-credentialed officers of the court have the interests of our nation and profession at heart or, when faced with a clear and present danger, choose to look the other way.

What are my own views? I’m not a particularly passionate writer these days; I try my best to maintain equanimity, see the many different sides of complex issues, and always entertain the possibility that I might be wrong. I’ve traded the snark of my youth, a time when I thought I was much smarter than I actually was, for the caution—and, I hope, wisdom—of middle age. I’m not a member of the #Resistance; sometimes I write positive things about Trump appointees, if I believe they’re warranted. If you’re looking for legal analysis from a hard-left point of view, I’m afraid I’m not your guy (but please peruse my list of recommended Substacks for other publications that might better fit your needs).

I do, however, have a very strong opinion on this issue. The Order is atrocious and appalling, it sets a terrible precedent, and it deserves strong condemnation from anyone who cares about the rule of law.

Now let’s hear out the other side, as we always should. Chad Mizelle, chief of staff at the DOJ, argued at the Wednesday hearing that “[t]he president of the United States is authorized under the Constitution to find that there are certain individuals or certain companies that are not trustworthy with the nation’s secrets.” And the Order speaks in those terms as well: it’s titled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie,” it opens by alleging “dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP,” and it invokes “national security” and the “interests of the United States” half a dozen times.

But let’s be real. Neither the Order itself nor Chad Mizelle at the hearing could cite any actual proof that Perkins Coie poses any serious threat to the national security or the national interest of the United States—unless you view “the national interest” as synonymous with “the interest of Donald J. Trump.”⁵

A more honest “defense,” and one that I’ve heard more frequently, goes like this: liberals and progressives in Biglaw have been mistreating conservatives for years, so now they can get a taste of their own medicine.⁶ But this is just “whataboutism,” which I find utterly unpersuasive. I refer you again to the WSJ ed board:

[I]t has typically been conservatives who have had a hard time getting representation from elite firms that fear political retribution from the left. Paul Clement, the premier Supreme Court litigator of our time, famously resigned from King & Spalding after that firm dropped the U.S. House of Representatives as a client in connection with the Defense of Marriage Act. [Ed. note: And then a decade later, Clement left Kirkland & Ellis after the firm told him to drop his Second Amendment clients.]

Some on the right will say that turnabout now is fair play, but it’s the opposite. It’s one more step toward making the legal system wholly political. Mr. Trump told voters he wouldn’t seek political retribution if he won. His attack on law firms violates that promise, and it won’t do him or the country any good.

I’ll get off my soapbox now—and turn the floor over to you, my readers. This is a Notice and Comment (N&C) post, so comments are open to all, not just paid subscribers. I look forward to your thoughts—and, as always, I’m open to being persuaded.

UPDATES:

• 3/17/2025, 4:13 p.m. For additional discussion of the order targeting Perkins Coie, including analysis of the hearing before Judge Howell, see this Executive Functions post by Bob Bauer—who is both a former Perkins Coie partner and former White House counsel.

• 3/24/2025, 2:55 p.m. A great deal has happened since the issuance of the Perkins Coie order. Paul Weiss was hit with a similar order—which was quickly rescinded, after chair Brad Karp cut a deal with Donald Trump. That led to a lot of blowback, which Karp responded to on March 23—a Sunday afternoon—in a detailed, firmwide email. He described the order as an “existential” threat that “could easily have destroyed our firm.”

1. To keep this post to a manageable length, I’m sparing you the details and background about the Order—including why Trump is so angry at the firm. If you need to get up to speed, please see The New York Times (gift link), The Washington Post (gift link), or my last Judicial Notice news roundup.

There are, by the way, plenty of ambiguities in the reach of the Order. Some exist on the face of the Order, with various provisions qualified in different ways—e.g., if “consistent with applicable law,” if “permitted by law,” or if not acting “would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States.”

Other ambiguities lie outside the four corners of the Order. For example, as Sarah Isgur and David French discussed on Advisory Opinions, can Perkins Coie personnel be kept out of courthouses? On the one hand, courthouses are managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), which is part of the executive branch. On the other hand, courthouses are sites for the business of the judiciary, which is a separate and independent branch of government.

The reality that this Order would be a hot mess to implement is another strike against it. Fortunately, much of it is enjoined, at least for now.

2. You can find the complaint, Judge Howell’s ruling, and other case documents at a website created by Perkins Coie, “Protecting Our Firm and Safeguarding the Interests of Our Clients.”

3. Perkins Coie did not seek a TRO as to Section 2, requiring review and suspension of security clearances, or Section 4, calling for an investigation of possible racial discrimination—not just at Perkins, but at “large, influential, or industry-leading law firms.”

Section 4 is clearly aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in Biglaw. Here’s what the Perkins Coie complaint has to say on this subject:

The Order also seeks to impermissibly punish Perkins Coie because of its disfavored support of “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Perkins Coie has a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion. Perkins Coie, however, does not discriminate against its attorneys or employees on the basis of race or otherwise. Rather, fostering an environment where attorneys from diverse backgrounds and experiences can thrive and make meaningful contributions enables Perkins Coie to attract top talent and deliver exceptional legal counsel to its clients.

Perkins Coie does not have, and has never had, percentage quotas for hiring or promoting minorities. The lawsuit referenced in the Order challenging the firm’s diversity fellowship was quickly dismissed by the plaintiff after clarification that the program is open to all, regardless of race.

Given my strong and longstanding opposition to racial preferences, I hope you’ll forgive me for calling out the firm here. Saying that Perkins Coie “clarified” the hiring criteria for its diversity fellowship is like saying Dobbs “clarified” Roe v. Wade.

For years, Perkins Coie had “diversity fellowships” that were expressly reserved for “students of color,” “students who identify as LGBTQ+,” or “students with disabilities.” That sounds to me like a “quota for hiring” minorities—of 100 percent. And the firm abandoned it only after (1) the Supreme Court held unconstitutional Harvard’s and UNC’s use of racial preferences in admissions, in the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) cases, and (2) Perkins Coie got sued by the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAFER), an organization led by Edward Blum, the affirmative-action opponent behind the SFFA litigation.

But Section 4, the DEI provision, is only one section in an executive order that is otherwise indefensible. I don’t have a problem with the federal government investigating illegal hiring practices in Biglaw; I do have a problem with the federal government singling out individual law firms for disfavored treatment because they once represented clients adverse to the president.

Imposing disadvantages based on constitutionally proscribed factors is why racial preferences are wrong—and it’s why the Perkins Coie order is wrong too.

4. According to Michael Schmidt of The New York Times (gift link), Perkins Coie sought representation from Derek Shaffer of Quinn Emanuel before turning to Williams & Connolly:

Mr. Shaffer had a long history of bringing civil actions against federal and state governments, and had argued before the Supreme Court three times. Perkins Coie wanted to see if he could take on the firm as a client and quickly go to court to file a suit against the Trump administration to stop the executive order.

Convincing Mr. Shaffer to take the case would come with a major potential bonus: close links to Mr. Trump and his allies.

Lawyers at Quinn Emanuel represent Elon Musk and provide ethics advice to the Trump Organization. The firm has also represented Mayor Eric Adams of New York as the Trump Justice Department has moved swiftly to drop corruption charges against Mr. Adams, a Democrat.

Perhaps Perkins Coie was hoping that Quinn Emanuel partners with strong ties to Trumpworld, like Alex Spiro and Bill Burck, could work some behind-the-scenes magic, just as they did for embattled New York City Mayor Eric Adams. But QE declined to step in, per Schmidt, after firm leaders “concluded that this was not an issue they wanted to jump into at this stage as they continue to build themselves into a power center in Mr. Trump’s Washington.”

Other firms passed as well, until Williams & Connolly stepped up. And it makes sense that W&C would: as Schmidt pointed out, “lawyers at Williams and Connolly have long taken pride in their role as an adversary and check against the government.”

As noted by Bloomberg Law, Williams & Connolly “hardly ever hires federal prosecutors, who are courted heavily by other top white-collar defense shops seeking inroads at DOJ.” Instead, as noted by W&C alum Matt Herrington, it’s the firm you hire “if you want a full-on fight for every inch of territory”—i.e., you’re willing to go to trial if necessary, not trying to cut a deal and cop a plea.

5. Lacking any incriminating intelligence reports about Perkins Coie, criminal cases against the firm or its affiliates involving national-security issues, or other evidence that Perkins poses a real threat, Mizelle instead asserted that presidential determinations about national security are simply “not reviewable” by the courts.

While it’s true that courts historically have given the president significant leeway when it comes to national security, they have also recognized limits. A president can’t do whatever he wants—e.g., send members of a minority group to internment camps, seize steel mills, or use military commissions to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay—and then play “national security” as a “get out of court free” card.

6. I’ve placed “defense” in scare quotes because I’ve heard few (if any) ringing defenses of the Order, even from my conservative friends and readers. What I’d call the “how do you like dem apples” argument is less of a true defense, and more of a “too bad so sad” or “let’s not get our boxer briefs in a wad about this” point.

---

Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below.