Obama-Appointed Judge Rules Trump Lacks Authority to Revoke Law Firm’s Security Clearance

Critics who argue that the judiciary is overreaching in efforts to block President Donald Trump’s executive decisions may see a fresh example in a recent court ruling.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that President Trump did not have the constitutional authority to revoke the security clearance of the law firm Perkins Coie, according to a report by CNN.

The judge concluded that the executive order in question violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. She described the move as a “blunt exercise of power” and asserted that it “is not a legitimate use of the powers of the U.S. government or an American President.”

In her extensive decision, which spans over 100 pages, Howell wrote: “The U.S. Constitution affords critical protections against Executive action like that ordered in EO 1423.” She added, “Government officials, including the President, may not ‘subject … individuals to ‘retaliatory actions’ after the fact for having engaged in protected speech.’”

Perkins Coie is a familiar name in political circles, particularly for its involvement in the events surrounding the so-called Russian Collusion scandal. The firm worked with the Democratic Party to develop the narrative that Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with Russia.

Judge Howell, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, delivered her ruling in dramatic fashion, citing figures such as Shakespeare, John Adams, and the framers of the Bill of Rights.

Referring to a well-known line from Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Howell remarked: “In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’” the executive order “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.”

She further argued, “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.’”

Howell stated that the executive order and its supporting documents clearly demonstrated President Trump’s displeasure with Perkins Coie’s positions and clients. “EO 14230, the accompanying fact sheet, and the context surrounding the Order’s issuance each express President Trump’s disapproval of plaintiff’s First Amendment activity and demonstrate that EO 14230 targeted plaintiff because the Firm expressed support for employment policies the President does not like, represented clients the President does not like, represented clients seeking litigation results the President does not like, and represented clients challenging some of the President’s actions, which he also does not like,” she wrote. “That is unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.”

Trump’s executive order justified the revocation of the firm’s clearance by alleging a pattern of misconduct and political interference.

“The dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins Coie”) has affected this country for decades. Notably, in 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false ‘dossier’ designed to steal an election,” the order stated. “This egregious activity is part of a pattern. Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws, including those requiring voter identification. In one such case, a court was forced to sanction Perkins Coie attorneys for an unethical lack of candor before the court.”

The executive order also accused the firm of discriminatory practices, saying, “In addition to undermining democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement, Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.”