The battle between President Trump and a prominent Washington law firm has taken a new turn this week, as a judge intervenes to pause Trump’s actions.
The controversy kicked off when Trump targeted the firm, Perkins Coie, in an executive order.
But all sides agree that the issue is much broader.
To the critics, Trump is seeking to intimidate the legal community, discouraging them from representing his opponents. To his supporters, Trump is taking justifiable action over past shady behavior.
As is so often the case with the current president, the episode hearkens back to the 2016 presidential election.
So what’s going on?
What did Trump do?
On March 6, the president issued an executive order with Perkins Coie in its crosshairs. An order aimed at one private company is highly unusual.
The text of the order began by hitting the firm for allegedly engaging in “dishonest and dangerous activity” over a period of “decades.”
The president went on to assert that “notably, in 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false ‘dossier’ designed to steal an election.”
This is a reference to the infamous “Steele dossier.”
Trump also hit out at the firm for working “with activist donors including George Soros,” the billionaire funder of many liberal causes. And the president objected to Perkins Coie allegedly running discriminatory fellowships and hiring practices, by which he appeared to mean policies intended to encourage diversity.
Trump sought a series of restrictive moves in response: the suspension of security clearances for anybody working for Perkins Coie; a prohibition on government goods, services or facilities being supplied for the firm’s use; and the termination of any government contracts with the firm.
He also proposed a broader investigation into large law firms and whether their pro-diversity policies had the effect of discriminating against people on the basis of race or gender.
What is the backstory?
Perkins Coie did indeed represent Clinton’s 2016 campaign — and, during that process, it did indeed hire Fusion GPS, an investigative firm, to dig into then-candidate Trump.
Such behavior is not unusual, per se. Political campaigns retain law firms, and the mining of “opposition research” is standard practice.
The situation here becomes more murky because Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, to investigate Trump’s ties with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.
The resulting “Steele dossier” contained lurid allegations suggesting Trump could be compromised by Russian intelligence — allegations that were never substantiated but drove enormous amounts of adverse media coverage.
Adding to the controversy, a lawyer for Perkins Coie who represented the Clinton campaign, Michael Sussmann, was indicted in 2021 on a charge of lying to the FBI about another element of alleged links between Russia and Trump.
That said, the production of the Steele dossier was at least at one remove from Perkins Coie.
Sussmann, for his part, was acquitted at trial.
In a legal filing responding to Trump’s executive order, the firm noted, in reference to another attorney Marc Elias, that “the lawyer who led the representation of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign is no longer employed by Perkins Coie and has not been for years.”
The firm also argued Trump was being driven by a desire for vengeance, outlining its record of winning “all but one of dozens of challenges brought by the Trump campaign seeking to overturn the 2020 election results.”
The firm also noted that Trump, in a personal capacity, had filed a suit against the firm alleging it had conspired illegally with the Clinton campaign in 2016 — and that his case was dismissed.
What does the firm say about Trump’s order?
In its filing seeking to block Trump’s order, the law firm assailed the president’s demands as “an unconstitutional assault.”
Perkins Coie also contended that the executive order “does not even try to disguise its retaliatory purpose.” It noted Trump’s campaign trail promises to go after his opponents.
But the filing also asserted that the firm’s business was being directly — and immediately — imperiled by Trump’s order.
It said that “multiple” clients had terminated their relationship with Perkins Coie in the days after the order, that many of its largest clients compete for government contracts, and that the order was causing “reputational and financial harm that, if allowed to stand, jeopardizes the very existence of the Firm.”
Perkins Coie employs about 1,200 attorneys and an even larger support staff.
What did the judge do?
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell granted the temporary restraining order against Trump that Perkins Coie had sought.
Howell was scathing in her assessment of the Trump move, arguing that the order “appears to be an instance of President Trump using taxpayer dollars [and] government resources to pursue what is a wholly personal vendetta.”
She also suggested the order violated the First Amendment and said that no president could justifiably “bring the federal government down on his political opponents.”
Just as importantly, perhaps, Howell rang a warning bell about the order’s implications for the legal community writ large.
“I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here,” she said. “The order casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportions across the legal profession.”
Of course, Howell’s order is an interim one.
The underlying issues in the case will now be argued in court.
What has the reaction been?
Attorneys representing the Trump administration have argued that Perkins Coie is exaggerating the dangers, seeing “bogey men” where none exist.
Meanwhile, other high-profile figures have weighed in, not only on Perkins Coie’s behalf but to warn about what they see as the broader dangers.
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) — a frequent Trump foe — wrote on social media that the Trump order was “unacceptable” and “could have a chilling effect on the entire legal profession.”
