The judge strikes Trump's executive regulation on the law firm Perkins Coie | Donald Trump News

A district judge of the United States has fired an executive ordinance of President Donald Trump, who aimed at the Perkins Coie law firm for representing his democratic election rival Hillary Clinton.

On Friday in Washington, DC, Richter Beryl A Howell gave a five -page arrangement in which the executive regulation was explained unconstitutional.

“The Executive Order 14230 is illegal, zero and void in its entirety and should therefore not be taken into account,” wrote Howell in the order.

The decision is the first to permanently zero one of the executive regulations that Trump has given against a law firm. It is expected that his administration appeal.

As part of the arrangement of Richter Howell, the Trump administration must stop all investigations by Perkin's Coie, restore all canceled services and allow the law firm to resume its “ordinary business” with the government.

In her full 102-page judgment, judge Howell issued her reason and said that Trump's executive regulation was an “unprecedented attack” on the “basic principles” of the country.

“No American president has never issued executive commands such as the orders in this complaint,” she said in her opening lines. “In the intention and effect, this action draws from a game book that is as old as Shakespeare, which wrote the expression: 'The first thing we do let us kill all lawyers.”

Trump's executive order, added it, offers this Shakespeare printout a new turn: “Let us kill the lawyers that I don't like.”

The case began on March 6, when Trump published the Executive Order 14230 under the title “Risks of Perkins Coie LLP”.

Conditioning the work of the law firm near Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, the executive regulation suspended the security reviews of the law firm, limited their access to state buildings and ordered the agencies to terminate the contracts with Perkins Coie.

A handful of other law firms were also coordinated with executive commands, including Wilmerhale, Paul Weiss and Jenner & Block. Many had either caused the causes of Trump unfavorable or people with whom the President had expressed open displeasure.

But the idea that the president could withdraw services, security checks and even access to the establishment of a law firm raised questions about the constitutionality of these orders.

Critics pointed out that the first change in the US constitution protects individuals and companies from retaliation for the freedom of speech. The fifth and sixth changes protect the right to a proper procedure and the right to seek legal advisors of law firms such as Perkins Coie.

Many of the clients of the law firm had closely linked cases to the inner work area of ​​the government. Perkin's Coie even said in his submissions that his lawyers “necessarily interact with the federal government on behalf of their clients”.

It also added that some of his customers had covered Perkins Coie in view of the restrictions on the executive regulations.

In April, more than 500 law firms signed an Amicus letter to support Perkin's Coie and argued that Trump's actions “would threaten the survival of a law firm” – and would deter the clients.

Judge Howell confirmed these concerns in their decision and said that the law firm “was sufficient to determine monetary damage to determine irreparable damage”. She also described the executive order an “open attempt to suppress and punish certain points of view”.

Instead of taking such punitive measures, several top -class law firm decided to conclude a contract with the White House.

It was believed that Paul Weiss was the first to have a bargain and offered the administration 40 million US dollars on Pro Bono Legal Services. Others followed the example: The companies Skadden, Milbank and Willkie Farr & Gallagher each agreed to carry out 100 million US dollars of free legal services.

In her decision, judge Howell warned that Trump's executive regulations against law firms could have a relaxing influence on the entire profession and synonymous with a representative of power.

“The removal of lawyers as a guardian of the rule of law eliminates a great obstacle to the way to make more power,” she wrote.

The constitution added that the government reacted to different or unpopular language or ideas with “tolerance, not compulsion”.