Trump Order on law firm Perkins Coie is unconstitutional, judicial rules | Trump Administration

A federal judge on Friday permanently dismissed Donald Trump's executive order to the Perkins Coie company, which once worked with his presidential election in 2016 after he had declared in an extraordinary decision that the order was unconstitutional and illegal.

The decision of the US district judge Beryl Howell, who criticized practically all aspects of the order in a 102-page opinion, marks a great victory for Perkins Coie and could be used as a model by other judges, which were submitted by other law firms in similar arrangements.

“No American president ever have executive orders like those who were in question,” she wrote, adding: “In the intention and effect, this action draws from a game book that is as old as Shakespeare, which wrote the sentence:” The first thing we do, we kill all lawyers “.

Howell in particular found that the Executive Ordinance violated the first, fifth and sixth changes and permanently implemented its implementation. She also solved other law firms that have decided on strikes with the Trump government, instead of facing the opportunity to target themselves.

Perkin's Coie was the first law firm that ended up in the crosshairs of Trump's executive commands to law firms, which terminated all government contracts and prevented the federal agent from dealing with their lawyers or giving them access to federal buildings, including court buildings.

At the time, the administration said that Perkin's Coie was a national security risk, mainly because in 2016 Fusions -GPS had stopped in the name of the Clinton Presidential Campaign, which produced the “dossier” to advance discredited claims to Trump's connections to Russia.

Howell rejected this claim in her decision and cited Trump's attacks against Perkin's Coie and the breathtaking width of all, from the lawyers to the assistants of the company, who have restrictions that the executive regulation was a retaliation.

The provision in the executive regulation, which prevents its lawyers from entering the federal government buildings and dealing with government employees in particular, was not speculative, said Howell, partly because the government had canceled the meetings within a few days after the issue of meetings.

The government's attempt to argue that it was only limited if such access endangers national security or the national interest of the United States is not convincing, Howell said, since the Executive Ordinance itself said that the cooperation with Perkins Coie is not in national interest.

“This is unconstitutional retaliation measures and discriminatory perspective, simple and simple,” she wrote.

Howell also defended Trump about the requirement of the executive regulation for private companies that had government contracts to disclose whether they had ever worked with Perkins Coie, regardless of whether it was their state contract work.

In contradiction to protect the first change, the requirement, as Wowell suggested, agreed to use a lawyer freely, since the need to disclose possible work with Perkin's Coie that companies that refer to the government would be prevented from using them at all.

And the order was unlawful, said Howell, since disclosure “whether the contract for crucial, classified military devices for millions of dollars per item delivered or for paper clips that cost Pennies, and regardless of whether the disclosure of cooperation with the plaintiff had something to do with a government contract”.

The Trump administration is almost certain that you call the US Court of Appeal for the DC circuit. The decision is made weeks after Howell had previously issued a temporary injunction, the Trump's command arranged after a hearing in Washington last month before the Federal District Court.

This temporary injunction was followed by an emergency lawsuit that had submitted Perkin's Coie to the proof of Williams and Connolly, another elite company in the country's capital, which is known to take over the government's over -control.

Perkin's Coie had initially contacted Quinn Emanuel, who previously represented people in Trump's orbit, including Elon Musk, the Trump organization itself and the New York Mayor Eric Adams, whose accusations of corruption were dropped by the Ministry of Justice last month.

But Quinn Emanuel refused to take Perkin's Coie as a customer, since his top partners decided not to get involved in a politically sensitive topic that could make a goal from the association, just as they were on the rise as a power center in Washington DC.

While other law firms discussed whether they should submit Amicus letter or explanations to support Perkins Coie, the law firm was finally taken over by Williams and Connolly. She advised Perkin's Coie, an emergency hearing and a temporary injunction that Howell granted.