Perkins Coie, a Democratic law firm that commissioned the Steele dossier, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after the President suspended security clearances of its employees. Trump’s executive order accused the firm of being “dishonest and dangerous” and barred its employees from accessing government buildings. Perkins Coie believes the order was signed as a political vendetta in retaliation for the firm’s association with clients perceived as political opponents. The firm argues that Trump’s order goes beyond executive powers and violates constitutional rights, including free speech and due process.
Perkins Coie contends that the order interferes with its ability to represent clients suing the federal government, stating that it is an unconstitutional exercise of judicial authority. The law firm further describes the order as an attempt to bully those advocating viewpoints adverse to the administration. Perkins Coie, represented by Williams & Connolly, argues that there is no inherent executive authority to regulate or sanction lawyers for professional misconduct, as alleged in the order signed by Trump. The lawsuit claims that the order is an affront to the Constitution and the adversarial system of justice.
Perkins Coie, known for representing Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign, hired the intelligence firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research against Trump. This led to the hiring of former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to investigate Trump’s overseas business relationships. The Steele dossier, which contained unsubstantiated claims about Trump’s ties to Russia, was released shortly before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid Perkins Coie nearly $10 million for its services, leading to fines from the Federal Election Commission for lying about the funds used to obtain the dossier.
Trump’s order against Perkins Coie was based on allegations that the firm’s involvement in the creation of the Steele dossier was meant to influence the outcome of the election. Trump argued that the dossier was designed to steal the election and that Perkins Coie was involved in egregious activity. The order suspended security clearances of employees at the firm, barred them from government buildings, and directed government agencies to terminate contracts with the firm. Perkins Coie believes the order was a direct attack on the firm’s ability to represent clients and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The lawsuit filed by Perkins Coie in the US District Court for the District of Columbia claims that Trump’s order violates the firm’s First Amendment rights to free speech and Fifth Amendment rights to due process. The firm argues that the order is unconstitutional and an abuse of executive authority. Perkins Coie intends to challenge the order in court, with legal representation from Williams & Connolly. The lawsuit highlights the broader implications of the order, stating that its goal is to chill future lawyers from representing clients perceived as political opponents. The legal battle between Perkins Coie and the Trump administration reflects the ongoing political tensions surrounding the Steele dossier and its role in the 2016 election.
