Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit to challenge an Executive Order it deemed unconstitutional, prompting an hour-and-a-half hearing led by Judge Beryl Howell. The judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), agreeing with Perkins Coie on the likelihood of constitutional violations, specifically viewpoint discrimination and retaliation under the First Amendment. Howell highlighted the negative impact on countless employees, noting the firm has lost clients since the EO’s issuance. The government's argument regarding speculative harm was dismissed, and concerns were raised about the EO's potential to harm the legal profession.
Howell found the Order is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; the "retaliatory animus" is clear from both the EO and fact sheet.
The EO was not narrowly tailored and impacts thousands of Perkins Coie employees in administrative roles; the complexity of its implications was a focus during the hearing.
Howell's court ruled that the harms claimed by Perkins Coie are not speculative; the firm has lost clients and meetings due to the EO's implications since it was issued.
Perkins Coie attorney emphasized the EO's serious consequences, saying, "[The EO] truly is life-threatening. It will spell the end of the law firm."
Collection
[
|
...
]