Following a federal judge’s decision to prevent the Trump administration from seizing federal resources from a law firm linked to the Russia investigation under Trump’s first term—a lawsuit referred to by conservatives as the “Russia collusion hoax”—the White House deemed the lawsuit as “absurd.”
Tuesday, Perkins Coie moved for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Trump administration from cutting off the firm’s access to federal resources. The firm had hired the firm that had written the so-called “Steele dossier” about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, which was released in 2017 and used to obtain a surveillance warrant against Carter Page, a former adviser to Trump’s campaign.
The motion was granted on Wednesday by U.S. Judge Beryl Howell.
“The Trump Administration is working efficiently to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government,” stated Harrison Fields, a spokesperson for the White House, in a statement provided to HeadlinesForever Digital on Wednesday evening. “It is absurd that a billion-dollar law firm is suing to retain its access to government perks and handouts.”
U.S. Judge Beryl Howell heard arguments from Perkins Coie and Chad Mizelle, chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, on Wednesday afternoon.
Representing Perkins Coie, attorney Dane Butswinkas stated that the company’s order was like “a tsunami waiting to hit the firm.” He also mentioned that the firm’s revenue comes from customers with government contracts, which accounts for around a quarter of the business’s total revenue.
According to Howell, the ruling “sends little chills down my spine.” He made this statement on Wednesday.
To ensure that Perkins Coie’s access to sensitive material is in line with national interests, Trump suspended the firm’s security clearances in an executive order he issued on March 6.
Additionally, the order restricts the company’s access to government officials and removes access to sensitive information facilities for Perkins Coie employees. The federal government is also forbidden from employing Perkins Coie staff without express approval under the injunction.
Therefore, Perkins Coie asserts in their complaint that the executive order issued by the Trump administration is a “affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice” and puts the firm’s capacity to defend clients “under direct and imminent threat.”
Similarly, the lawsuit states that the executive order was in violation of procedural due process as it did not provide Perkins Coie with a chance to challenge the allegations made in the order.
“The order undermines all clients’ right to select counsel of their choice, violates core constitutional protections, including the rights to free speech and due process,” stated a spokeswoman for Perkins Coie on Tuesday. “We were compelled to take this step to protect our firm and safeguard the interests of our clients.”
On Wednesday, the attorneys general of many states—including Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Arizona, and California—filed an amicus brief endorsing Perkins Coie’s positions in order “to underscore the bedrock rule of law principles and free speech imperatives at issue in this case.”
The group of attorneys general stated in its brief that the president had “attempted to exclude certain lawyers and certain viewpoints from reaching a court of law at all” by official action. “It is a menacing message to attorneys nationwide: unless they advance positions or represent clients favorable to the current administration, their livelihood may be at risk and their patriotism will be called into question.”
After Trump cast doubt on Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, Perkins Coie defended Clinton’s campaign and the DNC in 2016. The firm also represented Biden himself.
While Trump was running for president in 2016, Marc Elias—then the head of the firm’s political law practice—engaged Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm, to investigate the candidate on behalf of Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.
Following this, Fusion GPS brought on Christopher Steele, author of the infamous “Steele dossier,” a former British intelligence officer. Details regarding Trump’s sex practices with Russian prostitutes were among the stunning and mainly unconfirmed claims included in the memo, which was released by BuzzFeed News in 2017.
After Trump refuted the dossier’s claims time and time again, he sued Steele’s organization, Orbis Business Intelligence, in September 2023, asserting that the dossier had a negative impact on his reputation and personal life. The case was dismissed in February 2024 by a court.
On the other hand, Trump characterized signing the executive order as a “honor” on Thursday.
Their actions are “terrible,” Trump remarked. I call it weaponization. One may argue that the use of weaponry against political opponents is unacceptable and must never happen again.