Perkins Coie Sues Trump Administration Over Executive Order (3)

Perkins Coie is suing the Trump administration over an executive order that sanctioned the law firm for its ties to Democratic politics.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in DC federal court, claims the White House broke the law with its directive to agencies to strip lawyers of security credentials, terminate federal contracts with the firm’s clients and bar Perkins Coie employees from entering government buildings or getting jobs at agencies. The firm is being represented by Williams & Connolly partner Dane Butswinkas.

“The order is an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice,” Perkins Coie said in its lawsuit. “Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the president perceives as adverse to the views of his administration.”

President Donald Trump said he issued the March 6 order because the firm was involved in “weaponization against a political opponent’’ during the 2016 presidential campaign. Perkins Coie lawyers advised Hillary Clinton and retained Washington firm Fusion GPS for research that resulted in the so-called Steele dossier, which alleged Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russian government officials.

“By reason of the order, the firm has lost clients, lost business (as clients have withdrawn business or given new business to other firms), and received worried inquiries from clients, including its largest clients, which question whether it can adequately represent them in light of the administration’s demonstrated animus,” the firm said in the lawsuit.

Perkins Coie’s lawsuit claims that no one still at the law firm was involved in engaging Fusion GPS. The firm asks the court to impose a temporary restraining order against the implementation of Trump’s order until it can rule on a preliminary injunction against it.

The White House in a statement said, “The Trump administration is working efficiently to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. It is absurd that a billion-dollar law firm is suing to retain its access to government perks and handouts.”

Musk Connection

Butswinkas is a former chairman of Williams & Connolly, a firm with a reputation as one of the toughest adversaries of the Justice Department. Williams & Connolly largely eschews hiring former prosecutors and often puts the department’s own tactics on trial.

Butswinkas represented Tesla Inc. chief executive Elon Musk in a legal battle with the US Securities and Exchange Commission over Musk’s tweets about taking the company private. In late 2018 he became Tesla’s general counsel before leaving the company months later, with Bloomberg reporting he was a poor cultural fit and wanted to return to private practice.

In addition to Butswinkas, the lawsuit listed 13 other Williams & Connolly lawyers as counsel for Perkins Coie. The group consisted of 12 partners at the firm and one senior counsel, F. Lane Heard III, one of its more senior attorneys.

Trump’s March 6 order also directed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate possible racial discrimination at leading law firms and singled out Perkins Coie for adopting race-based hiring quotas in 2019. The firm in 2023 overhauled its diversity and inclusion programs following a Supreme Court ruling curbing the use of race in college admissions.

The group of Williams & Connolly lawyers working on the case includes Malachi Jones, the firm’s inaugural chief diversity partner. Jones’ bio says he devotes “all of his time” as a partner to leading firm’s efforts to advance diversity and inclusion through recruiting, retention, and professional advancement.

‘Existence at Risk’

Perkins Coie’s 15 top clients by revenue are, or have affiliates that are, government contractors or subcontractors, according to an affidavit by firm partner David Burman. “Perkins Coie has already lost significant revenue due to the loss of clients who terminated their engagements in the few days since the order was issued,” he said.

If the order were to continue to cause clients to terminate their engagements, “it would put the firm’s solvency and very existence at risk,” Burman said. “It is not even clear if TSA officers can process us at airports,” his affidavit said.

Lawyers have said the firm’s case against the administration is strong. Bruce Green, a legal ethics professor at Fordham School of Law, said the denial of security clearances denies due process for lawyers and their clients. The requirement that contractors disclose ties to the firm for arbitrary and political reasons denies their right to counsel of their choice, he said.

“The reasons are arbitrary and political,” Green said. “This violates those parties’ right to legal assistance from lawyers of their choosing as well as to a fair opportunity to contract with the government—as well as the law firm’s due process rights.”

The case is: Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, D.D.C., 1:25-cv-00716, 3/11/25