News April 30, 2025

In an escalating legal showdown that underscores the tension between law firms and the Trump administration’s controversial executive orders, Perkins Coie has again outmaneuvered the Department of Justice (DOJ). At the center of this standoff is the firm’s high-stakes constitutional challenge against an executive order targeting it for alleged political bias and client representation choices. And in classic legal fashion, Perkins Coie just delivered a masterstroke.

Background: The Legal Fight Against a Politically Charged Executive Order

The drama began when Perkins Coie filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the executive order in question was a retaliatory move targeting the firm for its representation of Democratic-aligned clients and its support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The firm contends that the executive order violates First Amendment protections and principles of due process.

In March, Perkins Coie scored a major win by securing a temporary restraining order (TRO) that blocked key provisions of the executive order from taking effect. The ruling highlighted the court’s concern over the order’s constitutionality and the chilling effect it could have on legal advocacy and firm operations.

Read the full background on the lawsuit here.

DOJ’s Technical Argument—and Perkins Coie’s Clever Rebuttal

But the DOJ wasn’t done. In a recent filing, government lawyers argued that the injunction only applied to federal agencies specifically named in the original complaint—not to others that could enforce the executive order down the line. Their claim: unless an agency was directly listed as a defendant, it could still theoretically take action under the EO’s authority.

This might have seemed like a small procedural technicality, but in the hands of a skilled litigator, it quickly turned into a tactical blunder for the DOJ.

Perkins Coie’s response? A surgically precise amended complaint. The firm revised its filing to name virtually every relevant federal agency that could possibly enforce the executive order—creating a sprawling 40-page document that leaves absolutely no room for ambiguity.

See Roger Parloff’s annotated breakdown of the amended complaint on Bluesky. It’s equal parts legal strategy and shade.

“You’ve Been Lawyered”: A Legal Masterclass

The amended complaint isn’t just a bureaucratic checklist—it’s a strategic masterpiece. By formally naming each agency, Perkins Coie preemptively neutralized the DOJ’s argument and ensured the court’s injunction would apply as broadly as possible. Legal observers have dubbed the move both “petty” and “brilliant”—a precise and effective rebuttal to the DOJ’s procedural gamesmanship.

As one commentator aptly put it, borrowing a catchphrase from TV’s How I Met Your Mother: “You’ve been lawyered.”

Check out the firm’s official updates and case documents here.

What’s at Stake

This case isn’t just about one firm’s fight to protect its business interests. It represents a broader constitutional clash over the rule of law, executive power, and the independence of the legal profession. The Trump administration’s executive orders have increasingly targeted firms based on their clients or internal policies—an unprecedented move that many say endangers core democratic norms.

Other Biglaw firms, such as Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, are facing similar threats and have also begun pushing back with legal action and public statements.

Key Takeaways:

• Perkins Coie’s lawsuit challenges a Trump EO that the firm alleges is unconstitutional and retaliatory.
• A TRO is already in place, blocking key parts of the EO while the legal fight continues.
• DOJ attempted a narrow reading of the injunction, prompting the firm to amend its complaint.
• The new filing names every potentially involved federal agency, closing any loopholes.
• The battle is likely to shape future boundaries of executive power and protections for legal advocates.