'Unconstitutional retaliation': Judge blocks Trump order targeting law firm

Los Angeles Times - May 3rd, 2025

A federal judge has permanently blocked a White House executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, calling it 'unconstitutional retaliation.' U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell nullified the order, emphasizing it was an unprecedented action by a sitting president against a law firm. This executive order was part of a broader effort by President Trump to target elite law firms perceived as adversaries, especially those associated with investigations into his activities. It included measures such as suspending security clearances and terminating federal contracts with targeted firms.

The ruling marks a significant legal defeat for Trump's campaign against the legal profession, with implications for other firms similarly targeted. The decision underscores the tension between the Trump administration and elements of the legal system that have opposed him. It highlights the importance of legal independence and the constitutional protection against government reprisal. Perkins Coie's involvement in the 2016 election and its representation of clients challenging Trump were cited as reasons for the targeting. Other firms have managed to block similar orders temporarily or reached settlements to avoid sanctions.

Donald Trump Beryl Howell Executive Order Marc Elias Constitutional Law Perkins Coie Legal Retaliation

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article presents a well-researched and timely account of a significant judicial ruling against a former president's executive order. It excels in accuracy, with most claims verifiable through credible sources, and its clarity and readability make it accessible to a broad audience. However, the article could benefit from more balanced perspective representation and greater transparency in sourcing. Despite these areas for improvement, the story effectively highlights important issues related to executive power, legal ethics, and the judiciary's role in upholding democratic principles. Its potential to provoke discussion and debate underscores its relevance in today's political and legal landscape.

Accuracy

The article is highly accurate, with most of its claims being verifiable through multiple sources. The core claim about Judge Beryl Howell blocking the executive order against Perkins Coie is supported by court documents and other news reports. The details about the executive order's implications, such as suspending security clearances and terminating federal contracts, are consistent with the original order documents. However, minor discrepancies, such as the exact amounts involved in settlements with other law firms, slightly affect the precision, though they do not undermine the overall truthfulness of the article.

Balance

The article presents a strong perspective against the executive order, focusing on its unconstitutionality and potential retaliation against law firms. While the article includes quotes from Judge Howell's ruling, which provides a legal basis for the decision, it lacks viewpoints from the Trump administration or legal experts who might defend the executive order. This creates a slight imbalance, as readers do not receive a fully rounded view of the arguments for and against the order.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, making it easy to follow. The language is straightforward, and the narrative logically progresses from the court ruling to its implications. However, the article could benefit from clearer explanations of some legal terms and processes for readers who may not be familiar with them. Overall, the tone remains neutral and factual, aiding comprehension.

Source quality

The article appears to rely on credible sources, such as court documents and direct quotes from Judge Howell's ruling. These sources are authoritative and relevant to the subject matter. However, the article does not explicitly cite all its sources, such as those regarding the settlements with other law firms. The lack of direct attribution in some areas slightly affects the perceived reliability of the reporting.

Transparency

While the article provides detailed information about the court ruling and the executive order, it lacks transparency in terms of sourcing. The article does not clearly indicate where all the information comes from, such as the details about other law firms reaching settlements. Greater disclosure about the sources of these claims would enhance transparency and allow readers to better assess the article's basis.