Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (1:25-cv-00716)

Source: Court Listener
Type: news-reporting

Source Text

Excerpt only. The full source text is too long to reproduce here:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, HENRY VI, PART 2, act 4, sc. 2, l. 75. When Shakespeare’s character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, see id. l. 74, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding “[a]way with him,” referring to an educated clerk, who “can make obligations and write court hand,” id. l. 90, 106. Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power. See Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 371 n. (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (explaining the import of the same Shakespearean statement to be “that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government”).

The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era. In 1770, John Adams made the singularly unpopular decision to represent eight British soldiers charged with murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre and “claimed later to have suffered the loss of more than half his practice.” DAVID MCC ULLOUGH, JOHN ADAMS 68 (2001). “I had no hesitation,” he explained, since “Council ought to be the very last thing that an accused Person should want in a free Country,” and “the Bar ought … to be independent and impartial at all Times And in every Circumstance.” 3 DIARY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOHN ADAMS 293 (L.H. Butterfield et al. eds., 1961). When the Bill of Rights was ratified, these principles were codified into the Constitution: The Sixth Amendment secured the right, in “all criminal prosecutions,” to “have the Assistance of Counsel for … defence,” U.S. CONST. amend. VI, and the Fifth Amendment protected “the right to the aid of counsel when desired and provided by the party asserting the right,” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68 (1932). 1 This value placed on the role of lawyers caught the attention of Alexis de Tocqueville, who in reflecting on his travels throughout the early United States in 1831 and 1832, insightfully remarked that “the authority … intrusted to members of the legal profession … is the most powerful existing security against the excesses of democracy.” ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA 301 (Henry Reeve trans., 2002) (1835).

The Supreme Court, too, has recognized the importance of lawyers to the functioning of the American judicial system, since “[a]n informed, independent judiciary presumes an informed, independent bar.” Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 545 (2001). This is so because Congress may legislate, the President may implement, and courts may adjudicate, “but only the lawyers can prepare and submit the great issues of human justice under law in such manner and form that courts, in the ultimate, may be effective.” Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698, 706 (5th Cir. 1965). Absent their crucial independence, lawyers would “become nothing more than parrots of the views of whatever group wields governmental power at the moment.” Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117, 138 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting).

The instant case presents an unprecedented attack on these foundational principles. On March 6, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14230 (“EO 14230”), 90 Fed. Reg. 11781 (Mar. 11, 2025), entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.” By its terms, this Order stigmatizes and penalizes a particular law firm and its employees—from its partners to its associate attorneys, secretaries, and mailroom attendants—due to the Firm’s representation, both in the past and currently, of clients pursuing claims and taking positions with which the current President disagrees, as well as the Firm’s own speech. In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase “Let’s kill all the lawyers,” EO 14230 takes the approach of “Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,” sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.

Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with “tolerance, not coercion.” 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 603 (2023). The Supreme Court has long made clear that “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics … or other matters of opinion.” W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Simply put, government officials “cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” NRA v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024).

That, however, is exactly what is happening here. For this reason, and those explained more fully below, Executive Order 14230 is unconstitutional, and the findings and instructions to Executive Branch agencies issued in its Sections 1 through 5 cannot be allowed to stand.

Accordingly, the government’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss and for Expedited Judgment (“Gov’t’s MTD”), ECF No. 183, which seeks dismissal of the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 176, pursuant to “Fed. R. Civ. P. 8” and “Rule 12(b) & 56,” Gov’t’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss & for Expedited J. (“Gov’t’s Mem.”) at 3, 4, ECF No. 43, is denied. 4 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief (“Pl.’s MSJ”), ECF No. 182, is granted.

To aid in review of this Memorandum Opinion, given its length required to address the multiple issues raised in the parties’ pending dispositive motions, an overview is provided. Part I reviews the relevant factual and procedural background of this case. Part II provides the legal standards governing consideration of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and the government’s motion to dismiss and cross-motion for summary judgment, under Rules 8, 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 56.

Part III then turns to the substantive issues in dispute, which are discussed in three sections. Section A considers, and rejects, the following six arguments asserted by the government in support of dismissal of plaintiff’s claims challenging different parts of EO 14230, namely: (1) that the statements set out in the Order’s “Purpose” Section 1 are not contested; (2) that these same statements merely reflect government speech and not actionable findings; (3) that plaintiff’s challenges to the Order’s “Security Clearance Review” Section 2 are neither justiciable nor ripe; (4) that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the Order’s “Contracting” Section 3 due to the failure to allege holding or performing specific work on any government contract; (5) that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the Order’s “Racial Discrimination” Section 4 because the investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is not traceable to EO 14230; and (6) that plaintiff’s challenges to the Order’s “Personnel” Section 5 are not ripe because implementing guidance has not yet issued.

Section B addresses, in six parts, eight of plaintiff’s nine claims set out in the Amended Complaint, finding that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the following: (1) the claims of unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, in violation of the First Amendment, in Counts V and VII; (2) the claim of unconstitutional compelled disclosure, in violation of the First Amendment, in Count VI; (3) the claim of unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, in Count IV; (4) the claims that EO 14230 violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to counsel of plaintiff’s clients, in Counts VIII and IX; (5) the claim of unconstitutional denial of due process of the law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, in Count II; and (6) the claim that EO 14230 is unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, in Count III. 5

Finally, Section C addresses plaintiff’s satisfaction of the requisite showings for the
remedy sought of a declaratory judgment and permanent injunctive relief.

Part IV provides a brief conclusion summarizing the disposition of the pending motions.

I. BACKGROUND
The relevant factual and procedural background for resolving the two pending motions is
summarized below.

A. Perkins Coie LLP

Plaintiff Perkins Coie LLP (“plaintiff” or “Firm”) is a large international law firm, founded in 1912, that operates in the United States as a limited liability partnership. Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. 2, Pl.’s Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Dispute (“Pl.’s SMF”) ¶¶ 1-2, ECF No. 39-2 (citing Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. 3, Decl. of David J. Burman, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP, in Supp. of MSJ (“2nd Burman Decl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 39-3). The Firm employs approximately 2,500 lawyers and business professionals, including roughly 1,200 lawyers, id. ¶¶ 3, 10 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8), and represents clients of all types, including large, medium, and small businesses, individuals, and other organizations, in federal and state courts around the country and in different tribunals around the world, id. ¶¶ 5, 7 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶¶ 5-6). The Firm has consistently been named as one of the 50 largest law firms in the United States, and the Firm and its attorneys have received regular recognition for excellence from various legal organizations. Id. ¶ 8 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 7). Current attorneys and alumni of the Firm come from all sides of the political spectrum and have worked in the government under administrations of both parties and reflect both major political party affiliations. Id. ¶¶ 12-14 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 9). Most Perkins Coie attorneys are not politically active. Id. ¶ 12 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 9).

At the time EO 14230 was issued, “approximately” 24 Perkins Coie employees held active security clearances, including “a dozen persons with former military or other public service backgrounds,” id. ¶ 89 (citing 2 nd Burman Decl. ¶ 36) and two who held clearances “in connection with their duties as military reservists,” id. ¶ 97 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 38). Some also received clearances in connection with legal representations of clients. Id. ¶ 89 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 36). Four of these individuals were not attorneys. Id. ¶ 98 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 38).

As part of their legal practice, Perkins Coie lawyers “necessarily interact with the federal government on behalf of their clients.” Id. ¶ 24 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 19). All nine of the Firm’s practice groups “intersect with the federal government in some way and include clients with business before the federal government,” id. ¶ 29 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 21); see also id. ¶¶ 36-56 (describing business before the federal government in each practice area); id. ¶¶ 57-59, 62-66 (describing pro bono work involving the government), and a “significant majority of the firm’s clients have matters that require Perkins Coie lawyers to interact with federal agencies,” id. ¶ 33 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 22). All of Perkins Coie’s top fifteen clients by revenue (representing collectively “almost a quarter of the firm’s revenue”), and many of the Firm’s other large clients currently hold contracts or subcontracts with the federal government and compete for such contracts. Id. ¶ 147 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 47). Perkins Coie also represents many of these companies “for legal matters completely unrelated to” government contracts. Id.

In addition to its legal work, Perkins Coie “has a longstanding and demonstrable commitment to fostering diversity and inclusion … within the firm, the legal profession and its community.” Id. ¶ 18 (citing 2nd Burman Decl., Ex. 1 at 1, ECF No. 39-3 at 29). The Firm runs a “Diversity & Inclusion Fellowship program” to which all first-year law students may apply. Id. ¶ 22 (citing 2nd Burman Decl., Ex. 2 at 3, ECF No. 39-3 at 38). In 2019, the Firm also adopted the “Mansfield Rule,” “which aims to diversify the leadership of large law firms by broadening the candidate pool for senior management positions.” Gov’t’s Opp’n to Pl.’s MSJ (“Gov’t’s Opp’n”), Ex. 1, Decl. of Richard Lawson, Deputy Associate Attorney General (“Lawson Decl.”), Ex. 3, Press Release, Perkins Coie, Perkins Coie Adopts Mansfield Rule to Boost Leadership Diversity (“Pl.’s 2019 Mansfield Press Release”) (Sept. 6, 2019), ECF No. 143-2 at 100 (page number refers to ECF header). To do so, the Mansfield Rule requires that participating firms “certify that women, lawyers of color, LGBTQ+ lawyers and lawyers with disabilities comprise at least 30 percent of the candidate pool for significant leadership roles, senior lateral openings and promotions.” Id.

B. Perkins Coie’s Representation of Various Clients Cited in EO 14230

In 2016, Marc Elias and other former members of a practice group within Perkins Coie, called the Political Law group, represented Hillary Clinton “in connection with her presidential campaign,” against Donald J. Trump. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 75 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 60); see also id. ¶ 71 (citing 2 nd Burman Decl. ¶ 21). As part of this representation, these former Perkins Coie attorneys engaged the services of opposition research firm Fusion GPS. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 75 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 60). Elias left Perkins Coie in 2021, Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 71, 75 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶¶ 21, 60), and none of the Firm’s attorneys involved in the engagement of Fusion GPS have been employed by the law firm for at least the past three years, id. ¶ 75; see also id. ¶ 95 (stating that no Perkins Coie employee who held a security clearance at the time EO 14230 was issued “had any involvement in the Fusion GPS matter” (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 41)). Another former Perkins Coie attorney, Michael Sussmann, who was not part of the Political Law group, had been retained, due to his cybersecurity experience, by the Clinton campaign after the campaign’s emails were hacked. Id. ¶ 76. After being indicted in 2021 by a Special Counsel, appointed during the first Trump Administration, Sussmann was acquitted, on May 31, 2022, of the charge “of lying to the FBI about links between the Trump Organization and Russia.” Id. (citation omitted). Sussmann also left Perkins Coie in 2021. Id.

In the 2020 presidential election, Perkins Coie “represented a number of clients opposing then-candidate Trump’s challenges” to the results of the election. Id. ¶ 77 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 33). The firm’s clients “prevailed in all but one of the challenges” brought by President Trump’s campaign. Id. During that same election cycle, Perkins Coie also represented a number of clients in voting rights cases, including cases in which the firm’s clients “were successful in defending existing laws against various legal challenges.” Id. ¶ 78 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 33). In general, Perkins Coie “has represented both party-affiliated and non-partisan clients in litigation over election laws,” much of which was defending state election procedures and actions taken by state officials. Id. ¶ 79; see also Gov’t’s Opp’n, Ex. 1, Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s SMF (“Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s SMF”) at 3, ECF No. 143-1 (noting that Pl.’s SMF ¶ 79 is undisputed). In 2021, three former Perkins Coie attorneys were sanctioned a total of $8,700 “in connection with a single duplicative motion to supplement the record in a Fifth Circuit appeal in a voting-rights case.” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 83 (citing Court Order, Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, No. 20-40643, ECF No. 127-1 (5th Cir. June 30, 2021)).

Perkins Coie’s representation of President Trump’s political opponent in the 2016 presidential campaign and representation of other clients in connection with election litigation has drawn President Trump’s attention and ire, as reflected in his public statements and his filing of a lawsuit against the Firm. Specifically, on March 24, 2022, then-former President Trump filed a lawsuit against 31 individuals and entities, including Perkins Coie, “alleging that [they] ‘maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative’” that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia, including by “falsifying evidence, deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly-sensitive data sources,” among other allegations, and seeking over 24 million in damages. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 80 (quoting Compl., Trump v. Clinton et al., 2:22-cv-14102, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Fla.) (filed Mar. 24, 2022)). The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, less than six months later, on September 8, 2022, with the court finding that the lawsuit had “no merit.” Id. ¶ 81 (quoting Trump v. Clinton, 626 F. Supp. 3d 1264, 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2022)). As a result of this lawsuit, President Trump and one of his attorneys were sanctioned over 900,000 “for, among other things, bringing a frivolous case ‘in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative.’” Id. ¶ 82 (quoting Order, Trump v. Clinton et al., 2:22-cv-14102, ECF No. 302 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2023)).

Plaintiff has provided copies of approximately twenty statements made by President Trump since the 2016 election—the authenticity of which are undisputed by the government—critically referencing the work of Perkins Coie and its former employees involved in the representation of his political opponent in the 2016 presidential campaign. See id. ¶¶ 100-18, 124-25, 138; see also Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. 4, Declaration of Christopher N. Manning, Partner, Williams & Connolly (“Manning Decl.”), Exs. 2-22, ECF No. 39-4. For instance, on October 19, 2017, Trump tweeted, “Workers of firm involved with the discredited and Fake Dossier take the 5th. Who paid for it, Russia, the FBI, or the Dems (or all)?” Manning Decl., Ex. 2, ECF No. 39-4 at 14. In two tweets posted on August 6, 2018, Trump stated:

  “Collusion with Russia was very real. Hillary Clinton and her team 100% colluded with the Russians, and so did Adam Schiff who is on tape trying to collude with what he thought was Russians to obtain compromising material on DJT. We also know that Hillary Clinton paid through . . . a law firm, eventually Kremlin connected sources, to gather info on Donald Trump. Collusion is very real with Russia, but only with Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, and we should demand a full investigation.” Dan Bongino on @foxandfriends Looking forward to the new IG Report!

Id., Ex. 3 (“August 6, 2018, Trump Tweets”), ECF No. 39-4 at 16 (ellipsis in original, denoting break between two tweets). The demand for a “full investigation” could be read to cover plaintiff, among others.

President Trump’s statements and social media posts critical of Perkins Coie and its former lawyers, including Elias and Sussmann, continued in 2018. For instance, on November 9, 2018, Trump, speaking about an ongoing recount in a U.S. Senate election in Florida, told reporters:

  [A]ll of a sudden, they’re finding votes out of nowhere. And Rick Scott, who won by – you know, it was close, but he won by a comfortable margin – every couple of hours it goes down a little bit. And then you see the people, and they were involved with that fraud of the fake dossier, the phony dossier. And I guess I hear they were somehow involved or worked with the GPS Fusion people, who have committed – I mean, if you look at what they’ve done, you look at the dishonesty.

Id., Ex. 4, Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure (“November 9, 2018, Trump Remarks”) at 5, ECF No. 39-4 at 19. 8 The same day, he tweeted: “As soon as Democrats sent their best Election stealing lawyer, Marc Elias, to Broward County they miraculously started finding Democrat votes. Don’t worry, Florida – I am sending much better lawyers to expose the FRAUD!” Id., Ex. 5 (“November 9, 2018, Trump Tweet”), ECF No. 39-4 at 34.

Four years later, on May 31, 2022, Trump posted on Truth Social about Perkins Coie’s former employee, Sussmann, stating:

  Our Legal System is CORRUPT, our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan, compromised or just plain scared, our Borders are OPEN, our Elections are Rigged, Inflation is RAMPANT, gas prices and food costs are “through the roof,” our Military “Leadership” is Woke, our Country is going to HELL, and Michael Sussmann is not guilty. How’s everything else doing? Enjoy your day!!!

Id., Ex. 10, ECF No. 39-4 at 56. On December 11, 2022, Trump posted on Truth Social an article titled “Elon Musk Calls Out Sussmann, Perkins Coie for ‘Attempt to Corrupt a Presidential Election.’” Id., Ex. 12 (“December 11, 2022, Trump Post”), ECF No. 39-4 at 60. On March 31, 2024, Trump posted another article on Truth Social, this one titled “Marc Elias Is Scared…And He Should Be.” Id., Ex. 16 (“March 31, 2024, Trump Post”), ECF No. 39-4 at 69.

Other posts have focused more generally on Perkins Coie. On September 6, 2023, thencandidate Trump posted on Truth Social: “They spied on my Campaign, Impeached me twice, had the Russia, Russia Hoax, the Fake Dossier Hoax, FISA Fraud, Election Fraud, the ‘No Collusion’ Mueller Hoax, and so much more. I was innocent on all counts. If I am elected, they will be brought to JUSTICE, something that Republicans have always been afraid to do.” Id., Ex. 53 (“September 6, 2023, Trump Post”), ECF No. 39-4 at 602. The reference to the “Fake Dossier Hoax” in this litany of perceived wrong-doing alludes to plaintiff’s work representing President Trump’s 2016 political opponent and thus obliquely identifies plaintiff as one of the targets to be “brought to JUSTICE” upon President Trump’s election to his current office. This promise of retribution was repeated publicly by President Trump. For instance, in a March 4, 2023, speech, then-candidate Trump said, “I am your warrior, I am your justice, and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution. I am your retribution.” Id., Ex. 14 at 29:53-30:04, ECF No. 39-4 at 64.

Plaintiff and its former employees’ work representing President Trump’s prior political opponent were ongoing targets throughout 2024 for criticism and his promises of retribution. On May 5, 2024, Trump posted on Truth Social:

  Andrew McCarthy: “HILLARY CLINTON, RECIDIVIST ELECTIONTHEFT CONSPIRATOR…Regarding 1992, the Clinton campaign used a law firm as the intermediary for tens of thousands of dollars in payments to a private investigator (Jack Palladino) whose task was to obtain the silence of women who claimed to have had affairs with Bill Clinton…it turns out that this 1992 tactic – booking as legal fees what might euphemistically be called ‘research’ – was the blueprint for the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, in cahoots with the Democratic National Committee. They paid their law firm, Perkins Coie, which retained the research firm Fusion GPS and its contractor, former British spy Christopher Steele, to generate the farcical Steele dossier that was shared with the FBI, the State Department, and the media to smear Trump as a clandestine agent of the Kremlin…

Id., Ex. 18, ECF No. 39-4 at 73. On September 7, 2024, and again on September 17, 2024, and October 25, 2024, in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Trump posted on Truth Social his intent, if elected, to investigate and prosecute “Lawyers” and others he perceived to be helping political opponents and “involved” in what he perceived to be “unscrupulous behavior”:

  CEASE & DESIST: I, together with many Attorneys and Legal Scholars, am watching the Sanctity of the 2024 Presidential Election very closely because I know, better than most, the rampant Cheating and Skullduggery that has taken place by the Democrats in the 2020 Presidential Election. It was a Disgrace to our Nation! Therefore, the 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again. We cannot let our Country further devolve into a Third World Nation, AND WE WON'T! Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.

Id., Exs. 20-22 (“Trump Cease & Desist Post”), ECF No. 39-4 at 77, 79, 81.

C. Perkins Coie’s Representation of Clients in Litigation Challenging Current Trump Administration Action

On February 6, 2025, Perkins Coie, representing a group of transgender military servicemembers pro bono, filed a lawsuit, Shilling v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-241 (W.D. Wash.), challenging Executive Order 14183, which banned transgender people from serving in the American military. Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 84-85 (citation omitted). 10 The court entered a preliminary injunction, on March 27, 2025, enjoining enforcement of this Executive Order nationwide. See Shilling v. United States, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 926866, at 3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 27, 2025). No Perkins Coie employee who held an active security clearance at the time EO 14230 was issued was involved in this case. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 96 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 41).

D. Executive Order 14230

On March 6, 2025, President Trump issued EO 14230, entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.” 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781. In a televised signing ceremony, President Trump made clear his reasons for the Executive Order, stating about Perkins Coie: “This is an absolute honor to sign. What they’ve done is, it’s just terrible. It’s weaponization, you could say, weaponization against a political opponent, and it should never be allowed to happen again.” Manning Decl., Ex. 29, CSPAN Video of President Trump Signing Executive Orders at 5:27-40, ECF No. 39-4 at 133. On the same day, the White House released an accompanying fact sheet further explaining EO 14230 and the rationale for its issuance. Id., Ex. 28, Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Addresses Risks from Perkins Coie LLP, The White House (Mar. 6, 2025), ECF No. 39-4 at 131 [hereinafter EO 14230 Fact Sheet], also available online at https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-adressesrisks-from-perkins-coie-llp/.

EO 14230 has six sections, five of which are challenged in this litigation. See Gov’t’s Mem. at 1 (describing the Order as consisting of Section 1 and “the operative sections … 2, 3, 4, and 5”); Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 127-31 (describing Sections 1 through 5 of the EO). Section 1, titled “Purpose,” makes a number of purported derogatory factual findings about plaintiff’s conduct, using such words as, in the first sentence, “dishonest and dangerous activity”; in the third sentence, “egregious activity”; in the fourth sentence, “unethical lack of candor”; in the fifth sentence, accusing the Firm of “racially discriminat[ing] against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants,” which, in the tenth and last sentence, shows “disrespect for the bedrock principle of equality.” Based on these findings, the last sentence of Section 1 states they “represent[] good cause to conclude that they neither have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds,” as directed in the instructions to all Executive branch agencies that follow in the next sections of the Order. EO 14230 § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781. The government confirms that these are a presidential “finding” and that “everything else in the executive order that is being challenged, Sections 3 and … 5, fundamentally flow from that determination.” Tr. of Mar. 12, 2025, Hr’g (“TRO Hr’g Tr.”) at 35:9-12, ECF No. 22; see also Tr. of Apr. 23, 2025, Mots. Hearing (“Mots. Hr’g Tr.”) at 38:18-19, ECF No. 169 (government counsel confirming that Section 1 “would inform any agency that’s reviewing a security clearance,” as directed in Section 2).

Section 2, titled “Security Clearance Review,” consists of two parts. The first subsection orders the immediate suspension of any active security clearances held by any Perkins Coie employee “pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.” EO 14230 § 2(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781.12 This subsection, by its terms, covers all Perkins Coie employees, regardless of their role at the firm or the reasons for which they hold a clearance. Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 24:13-14 (government counsel confirming “we would interpret it[] as being that broad”).

The second subsection of Section 2 orders the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to “identify all Government goods, property, material, and services” currently provided “for the benefit of Perkins Coie,” and then directs the heads of agencies to “expeditiously cease” such provision. EO 14230 § 2(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781. 13 The government has offered scope-limiting gloss on this subsection, pointing to both the instruction’s placement in Section 2 of the Order and the textual phrase “for the benefit of Perkins Coie.” In particular, the government suggests that, given the topic addressed in this subsection, the instructions contained therein should be construed as limited to goods, property, material, and services with “some general nexus to some national security issue,” Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 52:9-12; see also id. at 48:9-53:1, and, given the textual reference to plaintiff’s benefit, further limited to exclude the “types of goods and services … provided to the public more generally,” Gov’t’s Opp’n at 11. Whatever the merits of the government’s post hoc interpretive limitations on the scope of subsection (b), however, these limitations did not appear in OMB’s implementation directions for this subsection. OMB’s March 7, 2025, Memorandum, sent to the heads of all executive departments and agencies, contained no text limiting the scope of this subsection to “Government goods, property, material, and services” that were national security-related or not otherwise provided to the public generally. Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 50:25-53:1; Manning Decl., Ex. 31, M-25-17, Memorandum from OMB Director Vought to Executive Department and Agency Heads Re: Implementation of the Executive Order on “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP” (“OMB Implementation Mem.”), ECF No. 39-4 at 140.

Section 3 is titled “Contracting,” and has two subsections. EO 14230 § 3, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781-82. The first subsection directs all “Government contracting agencies” to require government contractors to “disclose any business they do with Perkins Coie and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract.” Id. § 3(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781. The next subsection provides instructions on what each agency must do with those government contractor disclosures. Specifically, all agency “heads” are directed to review all government contracts with either Perkins Coie or any entity that disclosed a business relationship with Perkins Coie. Id. § 3(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782. 15 Pursuant to this review, agencies are directed to “terminate any contract … for which Perkins Coie has been hired to perform any service,” id. § 3(b)(i); see also EO 14230 Fact Sheet (“[T]he Federal Government will prohibit funding contractors that use Perkins Coie LLP.”), and “otherwise align” funding decisions with the administration’s priorities, EO 14230 § 3(b)(ii), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782; see also TRO Hr’g Tr. at 16:11-14 (plaintiff’s counsel reading Section 3 as “essentially say[ing] to these contractors” that, “[i]f you want to have government contracts, you cannot use this law firm”). To monitor progress on implementation of Section 3, all agencies are instructed to submit to OMB their assessment of any contracts with Perkins Coie or contractors doing business with Perkins Coie and “any actions taken with respect to those contracts in accordance with this order.” EO 14230 § 3(b)(ii), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782.

Section 4, titled “Racial Discrimination,” has two subsections. EO 14230 § 4, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782. The first subsection directs the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to “review the practices of representative large, influential, or industry leading law firms” to ensure compliance with employment laws, including specifically whether such firms “reserve certain positions, such as summer associate spots, for individuals of preferred races; promote individuals on a discriminatory basis; permit client access on a discriminatory basis; or provide access to events, trainings, or travel on a discriminatory basis.” Id. § 4(a); 16 see also Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 58:6-59:19 (government counsel explaining that the Trump Administration considered appropriate subjects of investigation, law firms sending “certain racial, ethnic, and gender-based delegations to meet with clients,” to the exclusion of members of other groups, and “at very large venues, training conferences, professional associations where speakers are excluded on the basis of race and sex in order to have a certain composition on the panel”).

The second subsection directs the Attorney General to investigate, “in coordination with the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in consultation with State Attorneys General as appropriate,” any such law firms that do business with the federal government to determine their compliance with “race-based and sex-based non-discrimination laws” and take any appropriate actions based on those investigations. EO 14230 § 4(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782. 17 These Attorney General-led federal investigations could evaluate both federal and state discrimination laws, though government counsel suggested that consultation with state Attorneys General would most likely occur to investigate violations of state civil rights laws “pattern[ed]” closely after federal laws. Mots.’ Hr’g Tr. at 60:6-10; see also id. at 59:20-60:17.

Events Citing This Source

Event	Date	Category
Executive Orders Against Law Firms	Feb-May 2025	Abuse of Power

People Mentioned

Person	Role

Institutions Mentioned

Institution	Description

Related Sources

Source	Type	Publisher
Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP	news-reporting	Federal Register
Judge bars Trump order against law firm tied to Robert Mueller	news-reporting	Reuters