Judge stops Trump order barring law firm behind Steele dossier from entering government buildings

A recent development has emerged involving a federal judge halting the Trump administration from enforcing certain provisions of an executive order targeting the prominent Democratic law firm Perkins Coie. The firm, known for its role in crafting the controversial Steele dossier, sought a temporary restraining order against the order that barred its lawyers from government buildings and federal agency interactions.

US District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by Obama, granted Perkins Coie’s request, citing the “retaliatory animus” evident in the order. Howell suggested that the order violated constitutional protections against discrimination based on viewpoints. President Trump’s executive order, signed last week, revoked security clearances from the law firm and called for the termination of its contracts with federal clients, labeling Perkins Coie as “dishonest and dangerous.”

Perkins Coie swiftly responded by filing a lawsuit against the president, accusing him of pursuing a politically motivated vendetta. The firm’s lawsuit did not contest the security clearance revocation. The executive order, if enforced, would significantly impact Perkins Coie’s revenue as a quarter of it comes from government clients.

During the 2016 election cycle, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump for the Clinton campaign, leading to the creation of the Steele dossier by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. The dossier made unproven allegations of Trump campaign ties with Russia, some of which have since been discredited. Despite findings that Russia favored Trump in the election, key details in the dossier were not corroborated.

One particularly sensational claim in the dossier suggested that Russian intelligence possessed compromising tapes of Trump from his 2013 stay in Moscow. Perkins Coie’s attorneys argued that the executive order posed a severe threat to the firm’s existence, given its substantial reliance on government work.

The Trump administration defended the order, asserting the president’s authority to determine trustworthiness with national secrets. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, represented the administration during arguments, dismissing Perkins Coie’s concerns as unfounded. Mizelle emphasized the president’s prerogative to make such decisions.

Judge Howell expressed apprehension about the potential precedent set by the executive order before issuing the temporary restraining order. Trump’s use of executive power to revoke security clearances has been a recurring theme since his return to office, targeting various former officials.

In his executive order, Trump criticized Perkins Coie for commissioning the Steele dossier, which he deemed as an attempt to sway an election. The firm received substantial payments from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election cycle.

The ongoing legal battle between Perkins Coie and the Trump administration highlights the intersection of politics, law, and constitutional protections. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the legal profession and the broader debate on executive authority.