Federal judge declares Trump-era Executive order targeting law firm unconstitutional
Judge Howell found that the executive order—known as EO 1423—breached the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Describing the directive as an “unjustified assertion of presidential power,” she noted that it amounted to improper governmental retaliation for constitutionally protected activities.
.jpeg)
A federal court has struck down an executive order issued by former President Donald Trump that sought to penalize Perkins Coie, a law firm that represented his 2016 election rival, Hillary Clinton. In a ruling issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell determined the order was unconstitutional, violating multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Howell found that the executive order—known as EO 1423—breached the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Describing the directive as an “unjustified assertion of presidential power,” she noted that it amounted to improper governmental retaliation for constitutionally protected activities.
“The Constitution of the United States provides essential safeguards against executive overreach,” Howell wrote in her detailed opinion exceeding 100 pages. “Neither the President nor any government official has the authority to penalize individuals or entities for engaging in protected political speech.”
The executive order in question targeted Perkins Coie and other legal firms involved in voting rights litigation and representation of political figures Trump opposed. The directive attempted to restrict these firms’ access to government contracts and security clearances. While courts had previously paused portions of these orders, Judge Howell’s decision marks the first time one has been permanently invalidated in its entirety.
Quoting historical figures including William Shakespeare and John Adams, Howell strongly criticized the administration's actions. Referencing Shakespeare’s line “Let’s kill all the lawyers,” she said the executive order echoed a disturbing sentiment: eliminate legal advocates who don’t align with presidential preferences.
Judge Howell ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the order constituted retaliatory action in violation of the First Amendment. She also cited its vague language and absence of due process as reasons for its unconstitutionality under the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, the order was found to violate the Sixth Amendment by hindering individuals’ rights to choose their legal representation freely.
