US judge strikes down Trump order against law firm Perkins Coie

By Mike Scarcella and David Thomas

(Reuters) -A federal judge on Friday struck down Donald Trump's executive order targeting law firm Perkins Coie as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's protections of free speech and due process and castigated him for "settling personal vendettas."

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell's ruling was a setback for the Republican president's campaign against the legal industry.

It was also the first ruling by a judge deciding the legal merits of any of the several directives Trump has aimed at law firms that have handled legal challenges to his actions, represented political adversaries or employed lawyers who have taken part in investigations of him.

Howell, in a sharply worded, 102-page opinion, said Trump's executive order was an attack on foundational principles of American jurisprudence and the role lawyers play in ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice.

"Settling 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.

Perkins Coie and White House representatives did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.

Howell, based in Washington, barred federal agencies from enforcing Trump's March 6 order against Perkins Coie. The judge had previously issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of key provisions of Trump's directive.

The Justice Department can appeal Howell's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Perkins Coie, a 1,200-lawyer firm founded in Seattle, represented the campaign of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who Trump defeated in his first presidential run.

Trump's executive order sought to restrict Perkins Coie's lawyers from accessing government buildings and officials, and it threatened to cancel federal contracts held by the firm's clients. The firm sued, calling the order a violation of the Constitution's First Amendment protections against government abridgment of speech and Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process - a requirement for the government to use a fair legal process.

The judge's ruling represented the broadest rebuke yet for Trump's pressure campaign against law firms that he has accused of "weaponizing" the justice system against him and his political allies.

U.S. Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson, defending the orders in court, argued in each case that Trump was lawfully exercising his presidential power and discretion.

"In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'Let’s kill all the lawyers,'" Trump's 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," Howell wrote.

Three other major law firms - WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey - also sued the administration to block the executive orders Trump issued against them. Other judges have temporarily blocked those orders while the cases proceed.

Nine rival firms -- including Paul Weiss, Latham & Watkins; Skadden Arps; and Willkie Farr -- have reached deals with Trump that averted punitive actions, pledging a combined total of nearly $1 billion in free legal services to advance causes he supports.

Trump's targeting of firms has drawn condemnation from many within the legal industry. Some have criticized the firms that reached agreements as capitulating to presidential coercion.

Perkins Coie argued it was targeted over its work for Clinton's campaign and the firm's policies promoting workplace diversity and inclusion.

Trump's order accused Perkins Coie of "dishonest and dangerous activity." It said Perkins Coie "racially discriminates" in its hiring - referring to the firm's diversity policies. Trump and his allies have portrayed such policies as discriminatory against white people. Trump's order also criticized the firm's work representing Clinton's campaign.

Each of the firms suing the administration called the orders against them existential threats. They argued that the orders limited the ability of their lawyers to practice law and sought to intimidate their clients into seeking new counsel.

(Reporting by Jack Queen; Editing by Leslie Adler)