The ruling against Trump’s law firm order shows how to respond in this moment

Law Dork – Chris Geitner – “The ruling against Trump’s law firm order shows how to respond in this moment. Judge Howell’s decision striking down the order targeting Perkins Coie can serve as a framework for addressing Trump. On Friday evening [May 2, 2025], U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell took a stab at summarizing what it means to exist in this moment — and how courts need to respond to it — with lessons for the rest of us as well.“[S]ettling personal vendettas by targeting a disliked business or individual for punitive government action is not a legitimate use of the powers of the U.S. government or an American President,“ Howell wrote in her decision striking down the first of President Donald Trump’s several executive orders targeting a law firm with broad reprisals due to his personal grievances with the firm.Although Howell’s statement might have been an obvious one when she took the bench nearly 15 years ago, Trump proved why such a statement was necessary less than 48 hours after she issued it. Asked on Meet the Press whether he has to uphold the Constitution, Trump replied, “I don’t know,” later, at least, adding that his “brilliant lawyers … are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.” In a moment when the president is explicitly shoving his oath of office to the wayside without a second thought, the other branches, the states, and the people will have to step up…In her 102-page decision finding that Trump’s attack on the Perkins Coie law firm [Note – I added this link to Perkins Coie site with all documents relevant to this case] was unconstitutional on several grounds, rendering the executive order “null and void,” Howell, an Obama appointee, laid out the facts — many of them undisputed — about how Trump and the Trump administration are acting without regard to basic constitutional protections. She then expanded a temporary restraining order that had blocked significant parts of the order to a permanent injunction blocking the entirety of the executive order. Like the subsequent law firm executive orders, the Perkins Coie one included a “purpose” section that recounted Trump’s grievances, followed by sections addressing security clearances, government contracting (including the firms’ clients contracts), diversity efforts, and personnel (which includes building access restrictions and hiring restrictions). Quoting from key U.S. Supreme Court decisions from recent years — and one seminal case — addressing fundamental limits on government power, Howell concluded her opinion by stating:

Government officials, including the President, may not “subject[] individuals to ‘retaliatory actions’ after the fact for having engaged in protected speech.” Hous. Cmty. Coll. Sys., 595 U.S. at 474 (quoting Nieves, 587 U.S. at 398). They may neither “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 188, nor engage in the use of “purely personal and arbitrary power,” Yick Wo, 118 U.S. at 370. In this case, these and other foundational protections were violated by EO 14230. On that basis, this Court has found that EO 14230 violates the Constitution and is thus null and void.