Judge in Trump-Perkins Coie Fight Raises McCarthy-Era Parallels

A DC federal judge on Wednesday sharply questioned President Donald Trump’s executive order against Perkins Coie as the law firm argued the directive should be blocked.

Judge Beryl Howell questioned whether the government’s raising of security concerns about Perkins Coie was akin to what happened in the McCarthy era. She also said she found the administration’s view of diversity, equity and inclusion as “dirty words” to be both “jarring and puzzling.”

Referring to law firms that pledged free legal services to Trump, she questioned whether the administration made orders as a way to obtain such promises. She noted that concerns about Paul Weiss security risks disappeared after the firm pledged legal aid: “$40 million in free legal services is enough to trust Paul Weiss again?”

A ruling in favor of Perkins Coie would deal a major blow to the president’s efforts to punish law firms for taking up causes against his interests. Perkins Coie was the first of four major law firms subject to a Trump executive order that later filed suit. Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey are the other three.

Howell didn’t say when she would make a decision on the Perkins Coie motion. The March 6 executive order told agency heads to review contracts held by Perkins Coie clients for possible termination and to bar firm personnel from entering federal government buildings. Howell on March 12 blocked part of the order.

Deputy associate attorney general Richard Lawson told Howell that he didn’t view the executive order against Perkins Coie as a punishment but as a president carrying out authorities he is entitled to.

Dane Butswinkas, Williams & Connolly’s former chair, in arguing on behalf of Perkins Coie, said “the playbook of authoritarianism” is a source of Trump’s actions. “This is exactly the kind of conduct the constitution forbids,” he said.

Nine law firms cut deals with the Trump administration to avoid punitive action. Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins and others pledged a total of $940 million in pro bono services and committed to refrain from discriminatory hiring practices to avoid executive action.

Perkins Coie has said in court statements it lost clients because of Trump’s executive order against it. The law firm drew his ire for its work with the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign.

The case is: Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, D.D.C., 1:25-cv-00716, 4/23/25