{"id":110262,"date":"2025-03-12T01:06:08","date_gmt":"2025-03-12T09:06:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/03\/12\/perkins-coie-drags-trump-administration-clear-to-hell-in-new-lawsuit\/"},"modified":"2025-03-12T01:06:08","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T09:06:08","slug":"perkins-coie-drags-trump-administration-clear-to-hell-in-new-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/03\/12\/perkins-coie-drags-trump-administration-clear-to-hell-in-new-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Perkins Coie Drags Trump Administration Clear To Hell In New Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
(Photo by MANDEL NGAN\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Last week, Perkins Coie<\/a>\u00a0was called out by the Trump administration\u00a0for retribution<\/a>. They were the subject of an executive order that purported to revoke security clearances for employees of the firm, called for the termination of government contracts with the firm, and called for a review of the DEI policies of Perkins Coie (and other unnamed firms<\/a>). We learned the firm lawyered up<\/a> \u2014 with Williams & Connolly \u2014 and today they dropped a complaint<\/p>\n

The complaint wasn\u2019t written by a \u201cbunch of pussies<\/a>.\u201d No, the filing goes for the jugular. I mean \u2014 this is from paragraph 1 of the complaint:<\/p>\n

\n

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<\/em> who advocate for clients<\/em>; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie\u2019s ability to represent the interests of its clients\u2014and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all\u2014are 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Legal filings aren\u2019t often a fun<\/em> read, but this one delivers. It goes hard on the Trump administration\u2019s violation of separation of powers: \u201c[T]he Order\u2019s peculiar title betrays its oddity as an Executive Order, for its purpose is not executive in nature. Rather, the Order reflects a purpose that is judicial\u2014to adjudicate whether a handful of lawyers at Perkins Coie LLP engaged in misconduct in the course of litigation and then to punish them.\u201d And it just goes on \u2014 calling out the \u201cretaliatory aim\u201d which is \u201cintentionally obvious to the general public and the press\u201d and seeks \u201cto chill future lawyers from representing particular clients.\u201d<\/p>\n

But for my $.02, the hardest hit is the graph that just slams every single constitutional protection the EO violates. It\u2019s a long block quote but very much worth it.<\/p>\n

TL;DR is because CONSTITUTION!<\/p>\n

\n

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one\u2019s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm\u2019s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited \u201cdiversity, equity and inclusion,\u201d it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata<\/em> and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The full complaint is available below. The Trump administration picked a fight with some of the best and brightest lawyers, and they\u2019re about to find out exactly what that means.<\/p>\n

Perkins Coie v DOJ 20250311<\/a>Download<\/a><\/div>\n

The post Perkins Coie Drags Trump Administration Clear To Hell In New Lawsuit<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
(Photo by MANDEL NGAN\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Last week, Perkins Coie<\/a>\u00a0was called out by the Trump administration\u00a0for retribution<\/a>. They were the subject of an executive order that purported to revoke security clearances for employees of the firm, called for the termination of government contracts with the firm, and called for a review of the DEI policies of Perkins Coie (and other unnamed firms<\/a>). We learned the firm lawyered up<\/a> \u2014 with Williams & Connolly \u2014 and today they dropped a complaint<\/p>\n

The complaint wasn\u2019t written by a \u201cbunch of pussies<\/a>.\u201d No, the filing goes for the jugular. I mean \u2014 this is from paragraph 1 of the complaint:<\/p>\n

\n

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<\/em> who advocate for clients<\/em>; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie\u2019s ability to represent the interests of its clients\u2014and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all\u2014are 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Legal filings aren\u2019t often a fun<\/em> read, but this one delivers. It goes hard on the Trump administration\u2019s violation of separation of powers: \u201c[T]he Order\u2019s peculiar title betrays its oddity as an Executive Order, for its purpose is not executive in nature. Rather, the Order reflects a purpose that is judicial\u2014to adjudicate whether a handful of lawyers at Perkins Coie LLP engaged in misconduct in the course of litigation and then to punish them.\u201d And it just goes on \u2014 calling out the \u201cretaliatory aim\u201d which is \u201cintentionally obvious to the general public and the press\u201d and seeks \u201cto chill future lawyers from representing particular clients.\u201d<\/p>\n

But for my $.02, the hardest hit is the graph that just slams every single constitutional protection the EO violates. It\u2019s a long block quote but very much worth it.<\/p>\n

TL;DR is because CONSTITUTION!<\/p>\n

\n

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one\u2019s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm\u2019s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited \u201cdiversity, equity and inclusion,\u201d it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata<\/em> and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The full complaint is available below. The Trump administration picked a fight with some of the best and brightest lawyers, and they\u2019re about to find out exactly what that means.<\/p>\n

Perkins Coie v DOJ 20250311<\/a>Download<\/a><\/div>\n

The post Perkins Coie Drags Trump Administration Clear To Hell In New Lawsuit<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Photo by MANDEL NGAN\/AFP via Getty Images) Last week, Perkins Coie\u00a0was called out by the Trump administration\u00a0for retribution. They were the subject of an executive order that purported to revoke security clearances for employees of the firm, called for the termination of government contracts with the firm, and called for a review of the DEI […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":110227,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-110262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/GettyImages-1228302222-620x413-e3Xwa5.jpeg?fit=620%2C413&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110262","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110262"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110262\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/110227"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}