A federal judge lashed out at the Trump administration on Wednesday over a controversial executive order targeting Perkins Coie, a law firm known for ties to Hillary Clinton and for representing Trump’s political opponents.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell sharply criticized the DOJ and Office of Management and Budget, calling their conduct “a temper tantrum…worthy of a 3-year-old” during a hearing over the executive order, which accuses Perkins Coie of undermining democratic elections and racial discrimination — allegations the firm denies.
The order, signed in March, revoked security clearances, barred access to federal buildings, and terminated government contracts with Perkins Coie, citing vague “national security” concerns. The firm responded with a lawsuit, calling the move unconstitutional retaliation for representing clients critical of Trump.
“It sounds more like national insecurity than national security,” said Perkins Coie attorney Dane Butswinkas, noting the administration failed to present any supporting evidence.
Howell echoed that skepticism, comparing the action to McCarthy-era blacklisting and warning that it punished the firm before any investigation into wrongdoing.
The DOJ defended the order as within the president’s authority, claiming it was based on trust and protecting national interests — not politics. But Howell questioned whether Trump was using the executive branch to go after perceived enemies.
“Is this just about making Perkins Coie pay?” she asked DOJ attorneys, who denied the claim.
The court also referenced a $40 million legal service deal between the White House and Paul Weiss, another firm previously targeted by the administration, as a possible example of favoritism in exchange for cooperation.
Perkins Coie’s lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of violating constitutional protections, issuing “ex post facto” punishment without due process, and trying to silence dissent through executive power.
The DOJ responded with a motion to dismiss, warning that ruling against the administration would “muzzle the Executive.”
Judge Howell has not yet ruled but signaled skepticism toward the administration’s case and suggested she may block parts of the executive order — especially where national security justification appears thin.
Other law firms, including Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, have filed similar lawsuits against Trump’s executive orders, while firms like Willkie Farr and Skadden Arps have reportedly cut deals to avoid further targeting.