Trump Administration vs. Perkins Coie: Key Provisions, Legal Challenges, and Implications for Law Firms
Introduction
A recent presidential executive order has singled out Perkins Coie LLP – a prominent national law firm – for unprecedented sanctions. Issued on March 6, 2025, the order targets Perkins Coie over its alleged “dishonest and dangerous” activities, citing everything from past political work in 2016 to the firm’s diversity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In a highly unusual move, the order suspends all security clearances held by Perkins Coie attorneys and directs federal agencies to sever contracts and other ties with the firm. Perkins Coie – known for its past work for Democratic campaigns and major corporate clients – has denounced the order as “patently unlawful” and has vowed to challenge it in court. This blog post will summarize the key provisions of the executive order, analyze its legal vulnerabilities and potential defenses, and discuss broader implications for law firms. We’ll also offer guidance on how firms can protect themselves from similar government actions in the future.
Key Provisions of the Executive Order Targeting Perkins Coie
The executive order, entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” imposes sweeping measures intended to cut Perkins Coie off from sensitive government information and federal funding streams. Its key provisions include:
Suspension of Security Clearances: Security clearances held by Perkins Coie employees are suspended, pending review. In practical terms, this means lawyers at the firm who had clearance to access classified information (for example, those working on defense contracts or sensitive cases) are barred from seeing such information. The White House justified this by alleging that Perkins Coie’s conduct shows “disrespect for the bedrock principle of equality,” which is “good cause to conclude” they should not “have access to our Nation’s secrets”. This is an extraordinary step – security clearances are typically handled through individualized assessments, and it’s virtually unheard of for an entire firm’s clearances to be yanked via presidential order.
Cutoff from Federal Facilities & Resources: The order directs officials to revoke Perkins employees’ access to federal buildings and resources “to protect U.S. interests and national security.” Going forward, Perkins Coie attorneys will face restricted entry to government facilities such as agencies when acting in their official capacity. In addition, any government-provided resources or infrastructure benefiting the firm (for example, use of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities or other government property) must be identified and ceased. This effectively blacklists the firm from physical and logistical access normally available to contractors or counsel.
Ban on Federal Contracts Involving the Firm: To choke off federal funding, the order targets government contracts connected to Perkins Coie. It requires agencies to “review all contracts” with Perkins Coie and, “to the maximum extent permitted by law,” terminate any such contracts. Not only is the firm itself barred from new federal contracts, but the order goes further: any other company that does business with Perkins Coie must disclose that relationship to the government, and contracts “related to that business” may be canceled. In essence, the firm’s clients or partners could risk losing government work merely for retaining Perkins Coie.
Hiring Freeze for Perkins Coie Alumni: Federal agencies are instructed to “refrain from hiring” any Perkins Coie employees or alumni, absent a special waiver. This means lawyers or staff leaving the firm would be generally barred from government employment going forward. Such a directive is extraordinary; it essentially marks Perkins Coie personnel with a scarlet letter in federal job markets. The only exception would require an agency head to certify that hiring a particular individual “will not threaten national security”.
Investigation of DEI Practices at Law Firms: President Trump’s order also has a broader sweep beyond Perkins Coie. It directs the Attorney General and EEOC Chair to investigate large law firms (especially those doing business with the government) for compliance with anti-discrimination laws. The focus is on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs – for instance, whether firms have fellowship programs or hiring quotas that “reserve certain positions… for individuals of preferred races” or otherwise make employment decisions based on race or sex. This was spurred by Perkins Coie’s own diversity fellowship, which in 2023 faced a lawsuit alleging it “unlawfully excluded” certain applicants by race.
Justifications Cited: The order’s preamble accuses Perkins Coie of a pattern of misconduct. It references the firm’s role in 2016 political opposition research, noting that Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which produced the controversial “Steele dossier” against then-candidate Trump. It also cites cases where Perkins Coie allegedly worked with donors like George Soros to challenge voter ID laws, even resulting in court sanctions for the firm’s attorneys in one instance. Additionally, the order lambastes Perkins Coie’s “racially discriminatory” DEI initiatives – namely, diversity hiring programs announced in 2019 – which the firm only ceased after being sued. By tying these points together, the administration asserts that Perkins Coie has undermined “democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement” providing grounds for the punitive measures.
In sum, the executive order effectively amount to a government-wide shunning of a private law firm. The move is a dramatic escalation of tensions between the Trump administration and law firms that have represented its political adversaries. Indeed, just a week prior, a similar order targeted another firm, Covington & Burling, for its attorneys’ work assisting Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Legal Analysis: Why the Order Faces Strong Challenges
Perkins has announced it will aggressively challenge the executive order in court, and multiple legal defenses are available to contest the order’s validity This section explores the key arguments and strategies the firm (or affected parties) can invoke, as well as precedents that support those challenges. In brief, the order oversteps constitutional boundaries, lacks statutory authority, and violates fundamental rights. Below we examine potential challenges on constitutional grounds, statutory and procedural grounds, and discuss how a court battle might unfold.
Constitutional Challenges: First Amendment, Due Process, and Bill of Attainder Concerns
1. First Amendment Retaliation & Free Association: One of the strongest arguments is that the order unlawfully punishes Perkins Coie for engaging in protected political expression and association. The firm’s “offenses” in the eyes of the order include representing a political opponent (Hillary Clinton), participating in election-related litigation, and embracing diversity values – all of which involve core political speech or association. By stripping the firm of government business and security privileges, the administration appears to be retaliating against it for taking positions contrary to the President’s.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from conditioning jobs or contracts on political loyalty (except in very narrow policymaking roles). The U.S. Supreme Court has extended First Amendment protection to government contractors, ruling that “the government may not coerce support [for the ruling party]…unless it has some justification beyond dislike of the [contractor’s] political association.” In O’Hare Truck Service v. City of Northlake, 518 US 712 (1996) for example, a city dropped a towing company from its rotation list because the owner supported the mayor’s opponent. The Court held that this violated the First Amendment, as contractors are entitled to be free from retaliation over political affiliation just as public employees are. Northlake could not condition the towing company's employment on its political affiliations unless Northlake could demonstrate that O'Hare's political affiliations had a reasonable and appreciable effect on its job performance. The Court held that Northlake neither attempted nor would it have been able to make such a demonstration. Therefore, Northlake's removal of O'Hare Truck Service from its employment list was unconstitutional. By analogy, if Perkins Coie can show it is being blacklisted because of its representation of certain clients or advocacy of certain viewpoints, a court is likely to view the order as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination or retaliation.
Notably, Perkins Coie’s work was lawful advocacy – representing clients in court and participating in public policy debates. Punishing a law firm for its clients or causes undermines the principle that “everyone is entitled to a defense, and you don’t judge a lawyer or law firm by the client that it chooses to represent.” If this order stands, it sets a dangerous precedent that lawyers who take on politically sensitive cases do so at their peril – a direct chill on advocacy. The First Amendment is likely to be a central pillar of Perkins Coie’s defense, arguing the order is an impermissible attempt to penalize the firm’s speech and associations.
2. Fifth Amendment Due Process (Liberty and Property Interests): Another major line of attack will be that the order violates due process rights by effectively “blacklisting” the firm (and its employees) without any fair procedure. The order brands Perkins as untrustworthy and engages in what amounts to a blanket debarment from government work, without so much as a hearing or opportunity to respond to the allegations. In constitutional terms, this raises what’s known as a “stigma-plus” due process claim: the government has inflicted a stigma (accusations of dishonesty, disloyalty, discrimination) and altered the firm’s legal status (barring it from contracts and clearances), thus harming protected liberty interests. Normally, when the government imposes such grave reputational harm coupled with tangible loss of opportunities, it must afford due process.
Courts have recognized that government contractors have a liberty interest in not being arbitrarily blacklisted based on accusations of misconduct. For example, in the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Old Dominion Dairy v. Secretary of Defense, 631 F.2d 953 (1980), a contractor was prevented from getting any government contracts due to a determination (made without a hearing) that it lacked “integrity.” The court held that “when the Government effectively bars a contractor from virtually all Government work due to charges that the contractor lacks honesty or integrity, due process requires that the contractor be given notice of those charges…and some opportunity to respond before adverse action is taken.” Because Old Dominion had been stigmatized and denied future contracts without a chance to defend itself, the court reversed the debarment as a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Perkins faces a similar situation. The executive order accuses it of lacking integrity in various ways and seeks to bar it (and even companies who do business with it) from government work. Yet the firm was given no prior notice or hearing – the punishment was politically driven. This de facto debarment without procedural safeguards is constitutionally suspect. Perkins Coie can argue that at minimum, it should have the chance to contest the factual assertions (e.g., that it “manufactured” false evidence or “engages in blatant discrimination”) before being stripped of privileges.
Individual employees’ due process rights may also be implicated. For example, government employees who previously held security clearances or positions could claim the order unfairly wrecks their careers and reputation without due process. Traditionally, the grant of a security clearance is seen as a privilege, not an entitlement, and courts are deferential to executive decisions on clearances (per Dept. of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)). However, the blanket nature of this revocation – not based on individualized security risk but on guilt by association with the firm – is unprecedented. There is “no direct connection” between Perkins Coie’s diversity practices and any legitimate national security concern that would justify stripping clearances. This suggests the clearance suspension is punitive, not security-driven, bolstering a due process or First Amendment challenge (since it’s punishment for something other than genuine security risk).
3. Bill of Attainder and Equal Protection Arguments: The Constitution prohibits “Bills of Attainder” – laws that single out specific individuals or entities for punishment without trial (U.S. Const. art. I, §9, cl.3). Here, although the order is an executive action (not a statute passed by Congress), it resembles a bill of attainder: it explicitly names Perkins Coie and imposes penalties on that firm alone, based on a determination of wrongdoing, without judicial process. Perkins Coie could argue that the President is effectively usurping a power the Constitution forbids to Congress, and that such targeted punishment is contrary to constitutional norms (as well as the text). Courts have sometimes scrutinized laws singling out a party to ensure they are not merely punitive. For instance, the Supreme Court struck down a law barring Communist-party members from leadership positions as a bill of attainder in United States v. Brown, 381 US 437 (1965), emphasizing that the legislature cannot impose punishment on a specific group without a judicial trial.
Of course, the bill of attainder doctrine technically applies to legislative acts, and an executive order is not a statute. The government will argue this is an exercise of executive authority (subject to other limits, but not the bill of attainder clause per se). However, the functional harm is similar – a named party has been judged and penalized by executive fiat. In analogous contexts, companies like Kaspersky Lab and Huawei have challenged federal laws that banned them from government systems as unconstitutional attainders, albeit unsuccessfully. Courts in those cases found a valid non-punitive purpose (national security) and noted the measures were remedial, not intended as punishment. Here, Perkins Coie can distinguish those cases: the stated justifications (election “misdeeds” from years ago, internal HR policies, etc.) read more like a catalogue of past sins than a focused security-based ban. The motivation appears punitive and political, not a neutral prophylactic rule.
Finally, there is a broader Equal Protection/Fifth Amendment argument. The order discriminates against one law firm (and its employees) versus all others. If a court is unconvinced by national security as a rationale, it could find the classification arbitrary or driven by animus (which, under equal protection principles, can invalidate government action). The fact that the order targets Perkins Coie’s political affiliations could invoke strict scrutiny as well, since penalizing someone for political association triggers the highest constitutional protections.
Statutory and Procedural Challenges: Exceeding Authority and Violating Procurement Law
Beyond constitutional issues, Perkins Coie can argue that the executive order exceeds the President’s authority under law or violates statutory procedures. Key points include:
Ultra Vires Action & Lack of Statutory Authority: The President cannot simply decree new punishments or contract restrictions absent some authorizing law. The order attempts to root its directives in existing law “to the extent permitted by law”, but there’s serious question whether any statute authorizes these specific actions. For instance, terminating or voiding contracts en masse because of a contractor’s choice of law firm is not a ground recognized in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or contract law. Typically, government contracts can be terminated for convenience or for cause (e.g., breach or misconduct by the contractor). Perkins Coie’s presence as outside counsel is not an established cause for termination. If agencies followed the order and canceled contracts without legal basis, they could be found in breach of contract or acting arbitrarily.
The order’s requirement that all contractors disclose dealings with Perkins Coie and threat of termination if they do has no obvious statutory basis either. Federal procurement is governed by the Competition in Contracting Act and other laws ensuring fair and open competition. Imposing a political litmus test - has the bidder engaged Perkins Coie - is nowhere in the federal procurement statutes. In fact, such a requirement likely violates procurement integrity principles, and it would normally require a formal rulemaking to add new contractor qualifications. An agency attempting to enforce this could be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as taking action “not in accordance with law.”
Prior administrations have occasionally used the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) – a law giving the President some leeway to issue orders for an “economical and efficient” procurement system – to justify executive orders affecting contractors. However, the FPASA is not a blank check: the measures must reasonably relate to economy or efficiency in procurement. Here, blacklisting a firm for political reasons does not obviously promote efficiency or cost-savings; if anything, it limits competition and potentially deprives agencies of high-quality legal services. It resembles prior executive actions that courts struck down when they strayed into regulating behavior only tenuously related to procurement. In Chamber of Commerce v. Reich 74 F.3d 322 (D.C. Cir. 1996), for example, an executive order barring contractors from hiring permanent strike replacements was invalidated because it conflicted with labor laws and exceeded the President’s procurement authority. Perkins Coie could similarly argue that this order is an ultra vires act that meddles in areas (law firm-client relationships, diversity programs, etc.) that Congress never intended the President to police via procurement decisions.
Violation of Debarment Procedures: Even if the executive branch believes a contractor (or its affiliates) lack integrity, there are established suspension and debarment procedures to address that. Under the FAR, a contractor can be suspended or debarred for certain misconduct, but they must be given notice of the grounds, an opportunity to respond, and the decision must be based on a defined list of causes (fraud, conviction, etc.). By short-circuiting this process and ordering an immediate termination/review of contracts, the administration arguably violated those regulations. Courts have treated de facto debarments (blacklisting without formal procedure) as reviewable and unlawful. As noted, the Old Dominion Dairy case required due process for exactly that scenario. There are also Government Accountability Office (GAO) decisions and other cases where agencies were found to have improperly excluded a contractor without following the rules, and the remedy was to reinstate the contractor or reconsider with proper process. Perkins Coie can leverage these authorities to contend that the executive order’s mandates cannot be implemented without running afoul of procurement law. In essence, the President cannot simply declare a contractor non-responsible and bar them – that determination must be made through the proper legal channels, on legally sufficient grounds.
Contradiction of Equal Employment Laws: While the order accuses Perkins of violating anti-discrimination laws, the directive for agencies not to hire Perkins Coie employees itself is a form of employment discrimination (albeit based on employer affiliation). Federal civil service laws generally require hiring based on merit. Blanket bans on candidates from a particular employer are unheard of and not authorized by civil service regulations. If an agency refused to hire a qualified attorney solely because they come from Perkins Coie, that individual might have a cause of action (perhaps under the Civil Service Reform Act or even constitutional grounds) for an improper hiring practice. The government might defend it by claiming national security necessity, but as noted, that connection is dubious.
Separation of Powers Issues: Lastly, there’s a structural argument: the order, by targeting specific ongoing court cases (like Perkins Coie’s election lawsuits) and a specific firm, could be seen as an attempt by the executive to influence or retaliate against parties in litigation against the government. This encroaches on the judiciary’s domain and the independence of counsel. This is an argument a court will be conscious of – that upholding this order would green light an executive penalizing legal opposition, which is at odds with our adversary system. The courts have equitable power to prevent abuses that undermine the judicial process (for instance, sanctioning a party that retaliates against witnesses or lawyers).
Strategies for Challenging the Order in Court
How might Perkins Coie (or others) actually get this order overturned? There are several practical steps and legal strategies:
Seek an Injunction: Given the order’s sweeping effect, Perkins Coie would likely file a lawsuit promptly (in federal court, possibly in Washington, D.C.) seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to halt enforcement. They would argue that they face irreparable harm – loss of clients, damage to reputation, constitutional injuries – and have a likelihood of success on the merits because the order is unlawful on multiple grounds. For example, if agencies begin cutting off contracts or suspending clearances, the firm could lose business and talent in a way that money damages can’t later fix, which bolsters the case for immediate injunctive relief.
Identify Plaintiffs and Standing: Perkins Coie as a firm has standing to sue for the injury to its business and reputation. Individual lawyers at the firm might join as plaintiffs if their personal clearances were revoked or if they are being denied job opportunities. Also, clients of Perkins Coie could have standing – e.g., a company that is told it must fire Perkins Coie or lose its federal contract might sue, arguing the order harms its right to counsel of choice and disrupts its contracts. Involving sympathetic third parties (like clients or even industry groups of law firms) could underscore the broader harm and not make it seem like it’s just one firm’s self-interest.
Sue the Implementing Agencies (not just the President): Typically, courts are reluctant to directly order the President to do or not do something, due to separation of powers. The more usual approach is to sue the relevant agency heads (Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, Secretaries of agencies enforcing the order) to prevent them from carrying out the President’s directives that are illegal. For instance, the complaint might name the Secretary of Defense to stop termination of any Perkins Coie-related contracts, or the DNI to stop clearance suspensions. Since the order expressly calls on agency officials to act, those actions can be enjoined if unlawful, even if the President himself is not directly enjoined.
Leverage Judicial Review Under APA: Much of the order will be executed via agency decisions (terminating a contract, refusing entry to a building, etc.). Those decisions can be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act as “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” A court could find that an agency canceling a contract solely due to Perkins Coie’s involvement is arbitrary and lacks a rational basis (especially if the contract performance was fine). Similarly, if OMB or others issue any rules or guidance to implement the order, those could be attacked for not following notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements or for being beyond the agencies’ authority. The APA gives courts a structured way to invalidate agency actions stemming from the executive order without necessarily having to declare the President’s order itself unconstitutional (though the latter could happen as well).
Anticipate Government Defenses: The administration will argue that this is about national security and lawful policy, not punishment. They will cite the President’s broad authority over security clearances and procurement. However, the national security rationale is extremely tenuous in this case. Unlike cases of banning a Chinese telecom or a Russian software (where a clear espionage threat can be articulated), here the “threat” is that Perkins Coie might ideologically disagree with the administration. A court is likely to see through a pretextual security claim. Also, while the President does control clearances, he cannot abrogate other laws (like FAR or Title VII) by executive order. If any implementation step violates a statute, the court can set it aside regardless of the President’s intent. The Justice Department might also argue issues of justiciability – e.g., that the court cannot review presidential security decisions (based on cases like Egan) or that Perkins Coie has no protected interest in being a government contractor. But given the breadth of this order, a court will probably find a way to review it, as it did when multiple Trump executive orders were enjoined in previous years.
Relief Sought: Ultimately, Perkins Coie could seek a declaratory judgment that the executive order is unlawful and an injunction prohibiting its enforcement. They might not challenge every aspect (for instance, investigating DEI practices industry-wide might continue, as that’s more general), but the provisions specifically penalizing the firm would be at issue. If successful, the result could be a court order blocking agencies from suspending clearances solely due to affiliation with Perkins Coie, blocking contract terminations or hiring bans related to the order, and essentially nullifying the order’s effect on the firm.
Broader Implications for Law Firms
This executive order – and the legal fight it provokes – carry profound implications for the legal industry and the principle of independent advocacy:
Chilling Effect on Lawyers and Clients: If a precedent is set that a law firm can be punished by the Executive Branch for the clients it represents or the causes it supports, that would send a chill through the legal profession. Law firms might hesitate to take on politically sensitive cases, especially against the government, fearing retribution. Clients, too, might shy away from hiring firms that are outspoken or that have represented controversial figures, lest they draw government ire. This undermines the justice system’s adversarial balance, where even unpopular clients are entitled to zealous representation. The American Bar Association and legal ethics rules affirm that representing a client does not mean endorsing the client’s views, and lawyers should not be identified with their clients’ causes. The executive order challenges that norm by essentially equating Perkins Coie with its Democratic clients and punishing it accordingly.
Politicization of Government Contracting: The order explicitly injects political criteria into government contracting – effectively, “don’t hire firms that the President dislikes.” Today it’s Perkins Coie under a Republican administration; in the future, a Democratic administration might be tempted to retaliate against firms seen as aligned with Republicans. It’s a slippery slope toward a patronage system where contracts depend on political loyalty rather than merit. Major law firms often do work for both parties and maintain a neutral stance as institutions. Actions like this force firms into the political fray, which can erode trust. Companies that rely on outside counsel with government ties might also worry about guilt by association
Impact on Diversity and Inclusion Efforts: The order takes direct aim at DEI programs in law firms, framing them as possibly unlawful. Regardless of the outcome of the order itself, it serves notice that aggressive diversity initiatives (like racial fellowship quotas) could draw not just lawsuits from activist groups (as happened to Perkins Coie) but even federal action. Law firms and other companies may re-evaluate their diversity programs to ensure they comply with anti-discrimination laws – which is not inherently bad, but the tone of the order (conflating diversity efforts with “lack of integrity”) could chill even lawful diversity efforts. It politicizes what many firms consider good corporate citizenship or business practice.
Strained Government-Firm Relations: Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling are just two of the “nearly a dozen major U.S. law firms” representing clients in litigation against the Trump administration’s policies. The government relies on law firms for various needs (outside counsel in specialized matters, handling transactions, etc.), and law firms often hire former government lawyers. A hostile act like this creates a climate of antagonism. The legal community, across the political spectrum, has an interest in ensuring lawyers are not persecuted for doing their jobs.
Use of Security Clearances as Political Tools: Lastly, this incident highlights how security clearances can be weaponized. By revoking clearances broadly, the President sent a message that even handling classified matters for clients is a privilege that can be taken away if you’re on the “wrong side.” If unchecked, this could discourage lawyers from entering national-security-related practice areas or from taking on clients in that space who might be adversarial to an administration.
How Law Firms Can Protect Themselves Going Forward
In light of these developments, law firms – especially those engaged in public-impact litigation or government contracting – should consider steps to protect themselves from similar government actions, to the extent that they can even be avoided:
1. Ensure Legal Compliance and Documentation: First and foremost, firms should tighten their own compliance with all applicable laws. Many of the justifications in the Perkins Coie order (election law sanctions, alleged discriminatory programs) were used as a pretext for punitive action. Firms should conduct audits of their programs (e.g., diversity initiatives) to ensure they align with current law (for instance, after the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on affirmative action). By removing any genuine legal vulnerabilities, firms don’t provide ammunition to would-be attackers.
2. Diversify and Monitor Government Touchpoints: Firms that do significant government-facing work (such as lobbying, federal contracting, or handling classified info) should be mindful of their exposure. This doesn’t mean shunning such work, but they should have contingency plans. For example, if a large portion of the firm’s revenue comes from federal contracts, recognize the risk (however remote historically) that a change in political winds could put that at risk. Diversify the client base accordingly. Monitor any signs of political targeting – if an agency suddenly starts excluding the firm or if negative statements emerge from officials, treat it seriously and engage early (through outreach or quiet diplomacy) to clarify misunderstandings. Proactive engagement with Inspector Generals or agency ethics officials, if rumors of blacklisting surface, could possibly head off an extreme outcome.
3. Protect Your People: Law firms should remember that these actions affect not just the Firm but the careers of individual lawyers and staff. Firms should establish internal task forces for crisis response – including PR, legal strategy, and client communications – if targeted by a government action. Counsel might be retained for firm employees whose clearances or job prospects are impacted, to ensure their personal interests are looked after. It’s also wise to have a media strategy; Perkins Coie swiftly put out a statement condemning the order as unlawful, which framed the narrative early.
4. Choose Clients and Causes Wisely – But Don’t Self-Censor Unduly: While risk management is important, law firms must balance that against their duty to the justice system. Firms should not capitulate to intimidation by avoiding certain clients categorically; that would hand a victory to those who would politicize legal representation. However, it’s fair to vet high-risk engagements carefully. Consider whether the firm is prepared to weather potential backlash (political or public) for a given representation and have a plan for defending it. If you do take it on, double down on doing it ethically and well – any misstep will be magnified. And communicate to clients: if a firm might be unable to continue representation because of external interference, clients should know that and perhaps have backup counsel ready.
Conclusion
The executive order against Perkins Coie LLP is a dramatic and controversial use of presidential power . Its provisions – from banning federal contracts to stripping security clearances – depart from longstanding norms and appear crafted to penalize a particular firm for its political and social affiliations. While the order’s immediate impact is punitive, the ultimate outcome is likely to be decided in the courts. Perkins Coie has strong legal arguments at its disposal, grounded in the First Amendment’s protection of advocacy, the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of fair process, and the fundamental principle that our government operates by laws, not vendettas. Early indicators suggest the firm will prevail in obtaining relief, as no court has ever upheld such a personalized executive broadside against a law firm. However, it is still early in this fight.
