Fact Check: "Trump's order threatened law firms' independence, violating First and Fifth Amendments."
What We Know
On May 2, 2025, a federal judge ruled that an executive order issued by President Donald Trump against the law firm Perkins Coie was unconstitutional. The judge, Beryl Howell, stated that the order was an unlawful retaliation against the firm’s speech, which is protected under the First Amendment, and it also violated the Fifth Amendment rights related to due process and the Sixth Amendment right to hire an attorney of one’s choice (Perkins Coie and the First Amendment Defense). Trump's executive order, titled "Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP," was issued on March 6, 2025, and aimed to impose various punitive measures against the firm, including suspending security clearances and terminating contracts (Perkins Coie and the First Amendment Defense).
The executive order was part of a broader pattern of similar actions targeting multiple law firms that had represented clients or causes opposed by Trump. In subsequent rulings, other judges also found Trump's orders unconstitutional, reinforcing the notion that these actions constituted a significant threat to the independence of law firms and the legal profession as a whole (A fourth judge has blocked a Trump executive order ...).
Analysis
The ruling by Judge Howell highlighted several critical aspects of constitutional law, particularly regarding the First Amendment's protection of free speech and the right to association. Howell emphasized that Trump's executive order represented an unprecedented attack on these foundational principles, stating, "No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies" (Perkins Coie and the First Amendment Defense).
The court's decision was supported by a consistent pattern of rulings against Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, with multiple judges, including those appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, finding grave constitutional violations (A fourth judge has blocked a Trump executive order ...). This cross-party judicial consensus lends significant credibility to the argument that Trump's actions were indeed unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the judges' findings underscored the importance of an independent legal profession in maintaining the rule of law. Judge Richard Leon remarked that the independence of the judiciary and the bar is crucial for justice, stating, "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases" (A fourth judge has blocked a Trump executive order ...). This reinforces the notion that Trump's executive orders not only threatened specific law firms but also posed a broader risk to the legal system itself.
Conclusion
The claim that Trump's order threatened law firms' independence and violated the First and Fifth Amendments is True. The judicial rulings against Trump's executive orders demonstrate a clear consensus that these actions were unconstitutional, infringing upon fundamental rights protected by the First and Fifth Amendments. The evidence presented in the court's decisions indicates that these orders were not only retaliatory but also aimed at suppressing dissenting legal voices, which is a direct violation of the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Sources
- Perkins Coie and the First Amendment Defense
- A fourth judge has blocked a Trump executive order ...
- Judge rules on Trump order against law firm Susman Godfrey
- US law firm Susman Godfrey defeats Trump executive order
- 2 federal judges rule against Trump orders targeting law firms
- Judge finds Trump executive order punishing Susman ...
