A district judge in the United States has overturned a president’s executive order that targeted Perkins Coie for its handling of Hillary Clinton, the attorney firm’s Democratic presidential rival.
Judge Beryl A. Howell declared the executive order unconstitutional on Friday in a five-page order issued in Washington, DC.
According to Howell, “Executive Order 14230 is unlawful, null, and void in its entirety, and should not be disregarded.”
One of the executive orders Trump has issued against a law firm is permanently invalid with the ruling. His administration is anticipated to file an appeal.
The Trump administration must resume its “ordinary course of business” with the government in accordance with Judge Howell’s order, which also requires the government to end any investigations into Perkins Coie.
Judge Howell outlined her justification in her full 102-page decision, stating that Trump’s executive order was an “unprecedented attack” on the country’s “foundational principles.”
In her opening statement, she said, “No American President has ever issued executive orders like the one that is in this lawsuit.” This action is inspired by a playbook as old as Shakespeare, which says, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
She continued, “Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,” in a fresh way by Trump’s executive order.
On March 6, Trump published Executive Order 14230 with the title “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.”
The executive order, which cited the law firm’s cooperation with Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, placed restrictions on its access to government buildings, and mandated that organizations abide by Perkins Coie’s contract terminations whenever possible.
Executive orders also targeted a number of other law firms, including Jenner & Block, Paul Weiss, and WilmerHale. Many of the people had worked for Trump-affiliated organizations or had directly endorsed his policies.
However, it was questioned whether those orders were constitutional because the president had the power to revoke services, security clearances, and even building access because he had a disagreement with one law firm.
Critics argued that the US Constitution’s First Amendment shields individuals and businesses from being subject to reprisals for their free speech. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments, in contrast, safeguard the right to legal counsel from law offices like Perkins Coie.
Many of the clients of the law firm had cases with deep ties to the government’s internal operations. In its filings, Perkins Coie even stated that its attorneys “necessarily interact with the federal government on behalf of their clients.”
In light of the restrictions imposed by the executive order, some of its clients began to consider working with Perkins Coie.
More than 500 law firms signed an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie in April, arguing that Trump’s actions “would threaten the survival of any law firm” and “would scare away clients.
Judge Howell’s ruling supported those concerns, stating that the law firm had “shown monetary harm sufficient to establish irreparable harm.” She referred to the executive order as an “overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints.”
However, several well-known law firms made the decision to break with the White House in order to avoid such punitive action.
Paul Weiss, who reportedly offered the administration $40 million in pro bono legal services, was the first to strike a deal. Following suit, firms Skadden, Milbank, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher each agreed to provide free legal services worth $100 million.
Judge Howell argued in her ruling that Trump’s executive orders against law firms could have a chilling impact on the entire field and were equivalent to a power grab.
She wrote that removing lawyers as the body of law’s guardians removes a significant barrier to gaining more authority.
According to her, the Constitution requires that the government “repairs” disputed speech or ideas with “tolerance, not coercion” in response.
Source: Aljazeera
Leave a Reply