Perkins Coie successfully challenged executive orders from the Trump administration that targeted law firms for representing political opponents, including their representation of Hillary Clinton. The district judge struck down these orders, deeming them an overt attempt to suppress and punish dissenting viewpoints, thereby upholding the rule of law and protecting marginalized voices.

Perkins Coie legally contested and secured a ruling striking down executive orders imposed by the Trump administration, orders widely criticized as an attempt to suppress dissenting viewpoints and punish firms representing Democratic figures such as Hillary Clinton.

Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit resulting in a federal judge issuing a permanent ruling that blocks President Trump’s executive order, which sought to strip security clearances from the firm’s lawyers and terminate its government contracts. This legal action was taken in response to the administration’s targeting of the firm based on its representation of progressive causes.

A federal judge ruled that President Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie was unconstitutional, effectively blocking the administration's punitive measures against the firm for representing progressive clients and causes.

A federal judge ruled that President Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie was unconstitutional, permanently blocking its enforcement. The decision, which halted punitive measures against the firm for its progressive client representation, affirms constitutional protections for dissent and free speech.

On March 6, 2025, an executive order issued by the Trump administration targeted Perkins Coie LLP, citing its role in manufacturing a false dossier in 2016, undermining democratic election processes, and engaging in discriminatory hiring and promotional practices. The order mandates suspension of security clearances, review of government contracts, and investigation of its racial discrimination in employment.

In response to an executive order issued by the Trump administration on March 6 targeting its legal advocacy work—including representation in voting rights lawsuits and defense of political opponents—Perkins Coie, along with other major law firms, has filed a lawsuit. The brief argues that the order unlawfully retaliates against constitutionally protected advocacy, representing a clear stand against governmental overreach.

On March 6, 2025, a presidential order from the Trump administration targeted Perkins Coie for its role in challenging voter ID laws and for its controversial diversity hiring practices. The order cites past actions including the hiring of Fusion GPS to produce a dossier and alleged discriminatory practices in hiring and fellowship awards. While the order criticizes these actions as undermining established laws and fair employment, progressive analyses view efforts to overturn voter ID laws as a defense against voter suppression, despite concerns raised over the execution of DEI measures.

Perkins Coie filed a legal challenge against punitive measures imposed by the Trump administration – including suspension of its security clearance, restrictions on access to federal buildings, and other penalties – and has garnered support via amicus briefs from a broad coalition of law firms, legal groups, and academics.

Attorney General Kwame Raoul, along with 20 other state attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie LLP after President Trump's March 6 executive order targeting the firm for its representation of controversial clients. A federal court subsequently issued a temporary restraining order halting the enforcement of the targeted provisions, underscoring the protection of legal representation against government overreach.