Law Firm Targeted by Trump Says Government Has Failed to Comply with Court Order

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 11, 2025) — The law firm Perkins Coie has accused the Trump administration of failing to comply with a federal court order that mandated the reinstatement of its attorneys’ security clearances. This development marks a significant escalation in the ongoing legal battle between the firm and the administration, which began earlier this year when President Trump issued an executive order targeting Perkins Coie and other law firms.

Background of the Dispute

In March 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that suspended the security clearances of Perkins Coie attorneys and restricted their access to federal buildings. The order also directed federal agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm. The administration justified these actions by alleging that Perkins Coie had engaged in “dishonest and dangerous activity” and had “racially discriminated” through its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The firm, which represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and has been involved in various voting rights challenges, filed a lawsuit against the administration, arguing that the executive order violated constitutional protections, including the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Court’s Ruling and Alleged Non-Compliance

In April 2025, a federal judge ruled in favor of Perkins Coie, ordering the reinstatement of the firm’s attorneys’ security clearances and access to federal buildings. The judge found that the administration’s actions were likely unconstitutional and ordered immediate compliance with the court’s directives. However, Perkins Coie attorneys claim that the government has not complied with the court’s order, alleging that the administration has continued to restrict the firm’s attorneys’ access to federal facilities and has not reinstated their security clearances.

A spokesperson for Perkins Coie stated, “Despite the court’s clear and unequivocal order, the administration has failed to take the necessary steps to comply. This continued defiance undermines the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent for the treatment of legal professionals.”

Government’s Response

The Trump administration has denied any wrongdoing and maintains that it is in compliance with the court’s order. A spokesperson for the Department of Justice stated, “The administration is fully committed to upholding the law and has taken appropriate steps to address the court’s directives. Any claims of non-compliance are without merit.”

Implications for the Legal Community

This ongoing dispute has raised concerns within the legal community about potential political interference in the judicial process and the treatment of law firms that represent clients opposing the administration. Legal experts warn that continued non-compliance with court orders could erode public trust in the legal system and embolden other government entities to disregard judicial rulings.

The situation is further complicated by the broader context of the Trump administration’s actions against law firms. In addition to Perkins Coie, other firms, such as Covington & Burling and WilmerHale, have been targeted by executive orders that suspended security clearances and restricted access to federal buildings. These actions have been widely criticized as attempts to retaliate against firms that have represented clients in cases challenging the administration’s policies.

Looking Ahead

As the legal battle continues, Perkins Coie is exploring all available legal avenues to enforce the court’s order and hold the administration accountable for its alleged non-compliance. The firm is also considering additional legal action to address the broader implications of the executive order on its operations and the legal profession as a whole.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the relationship between the executive branch and the judiciary, as well as for the independence of the legal profession in the United States.