Over 500 Law Firms Rally Behind Perkins Coie in Landmark Challenge to Trump’s Executive Order

When President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14230 on March 6, 2025, targeting Perkins Coie LLP as a "dishonest and dangerous" security threat, he didn’t just attack a law firm—he ignited a firestorm across the American legal system. Within hours, Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia, challenging the order as unconstitutional. What followed wasn’t just a legal battle. It became a defining moment for the rule of law in the United States.

Why Perkins Coie Became a Target

The White House justification for the order was a mix of political grievance and ideological hostility. Trump’s team cited Perkins Coie’s role in representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, its hiring of Fusion GPS to compile the infamous Steele dossier, and its support for voting rights initiatives tied to George Soros. The order also accused the firm of "racial discrimination" through its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, claiming it imposed "percentage quotas" for hiring and promotion based on race—a claim Perkins Coie has consistently denied. But the real trigger? The firm’s willingness to represent unpopular clients. That’s the bedrock of legal ethics. And Trump’s order sought to punish it.

The Legal Counterattack

Perkins Coie didn’t wait. On the same day the order was signed, it went to court. Judge Beryl A. Howell, a federal district judge appointed by President Obama, didn’t mince words. At the March 11 hearing, she called the order "an unprecedented intrusion into the independence of the legal profession." By March 12, she had issued a temporary restraining order—and extended it through final judgment. The government appealed. The court didn’t budge.

Then, on May 2, 2025, Judge Howell issued a permanent injunction. The ruling was blunt: the executive order violated the First Amendment rights of free speech and association. "The government cannot punish a law firm for the clients it chooses to represent," she wrote. "That is not justice. It is intimidation."

500 Firms Stand Together

The real shock came on April 4, 2025, when Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and Eimer Stahl LLP filed an amicus brief on behalf of more than 500 law firms—from small practices in rural Kansas to powerhouses in Manhattan. Their message was simple: "If lawyers can’t represent clients without fear of government retaliation, the system collapses." The brief didn’t just cite precedent. It invoked history. The same legal principles that protected civil rights attorneys in the 1960s now protected firms defending political opponents of the president. "This isn’t about Perkins Coie," the brief stated. "It’s about whether any lawyer, anywhere, can take on a client without being labeled a threat by the White House." Eleven legal advocacy groups, including the Society for the Rule of Law Institute, joined in. They warned that the order set a precedent that could let any administration blacklist firms based on political alignment.

Trump’s Broader Campaign Against the Bar

Perkins Coie wasn’t the only target. On March 14, Trump issued a second executive order targeting Paul Weiss, accusing it of "inciting violence" by representing protestors at the January 6 Capitol riot. On March 21, he expanded the directive to include any attorney who challenges presidential actions. Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and others were swept into the net. Security clearances were suspended. Government contracts canceled. Lawyers were barred from federal buildings.

The Wall Street Journal called it "a direct assault on the adversarial system." Legal scholars compared it to Nixon’s attempts to intimidate the Justice Department in the 1970s. But this time, the courts pushed back harder—and faster.

What This Means for the Future

The rulings against Trump’s orders aren’t just victories for a few law firms. They’re a firewall against executive overreach. Judge Howell’s decision establishes that the president cannot use administrative power to punish attorneys for their professional choices. That’s huge. It means a future president—even one with very different politics—can’t blacklist firms for defending immigrants, environmental groups, or even political rivals.

The ripple effects are already visible. Law schools are updating ethics curricula to include this case. Bar associations are drafting model guidelines to protect lawyers from political retaliation. And firms that once stayed quiet are now speaking up. "We thought we were safe because we didn’t represent Trump opponents," said one partner at a mid-sized firm in Chicago. "Turns out, we weren’t. If they can go after Perkins Coie, they can go after anyone."

What’s Next?

The Department of Justice has signaled it may appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court. But with three federal judges already ruling against the administration—and the legal profession united behind Perkins Coie—the odds are stacked against the White House.

Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation to codify protections for attorneys targeted by executive orders. The House Judiciary Committee has already held three hearings. Bipartisan support is growing. "This isn’t about Democrats or Republicans," said one Republican lawmaker. "It’s about whether the president answers to the Constitution—or the other way around."

Background: The Rise of Political Targeting in Law

This isn’t the first time lawyers have been caught in political crosshairs. In the 1990s, firms representing the Clinton administration faced intense scrutiny over Whitewater. In 2017, attorneys defending travel ban plaintiffs were labeled "enemies of the people" by Trump himself. But never before has a sitting president issued a formal executive order to strip firms of federal contracts, suspend security clearances, and ban hiring their employees.

Perkins Coie’s case marks a turning point. It’s the first time the courts have drawn a hard line: the legal profession is not a political tool. And that line, once drawn, may never be erased.