(WASHINGTON) -- A federal judge appeared inclined Wednesday to enter a permanent ruling barring the Trump administration from implementing an executive order targeting the law firm of Perkins Coie, after repeatedly pressing a government attorney over whether President Donald Trump's sweeping efforts to target the legal community run afoul of the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who Trump criticized on social media earlier Wednesday over her assignment to the case, suggested repeatedly in the hearing that the administration's efforts to target law firms who had represented or hired Trump's political opponents echoed the repression of McCarthyism and the "Red Scare" era in American history.
Trump's executive order, which cited Perkins Coie's former representation of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, sought to strip security clearances from the firm's layers, virtually halt any dealings with the federal government and restrict its attorneys from accessing most federal buildings.
Trump has issued similar executive orders targeting four other law firms, while at least nine law firms have entered into controversial deals with the White House, offering millions of dollars in pro bono work on causes supported by conservatives to avoid being targeted.
Howell and three other federal judges overseeing legal challenges brought by law firms targeted by the White House have voiced concerns about the constitutionality of the White House's actions, and have granted requests from the firms to temporarily bar the administration from enforcing them as litigation plays out.
At Wednesday's hearing, Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson repeatedly sought to defend the executive order as lawful, arguing that Trump's views about the firm reflected his right to free speech and that the administration has broad discretion to raise national security concerns about a law firm's work.
But Howell was highly skeptical of those defenses and only grew more frustrated as Lawson refused to answer direct questions about the purpose of the executive order.
"The purpose was not to force Perkins to its knees?" Howell asked.
"I don't view it that way," Lawson replied.
At one point in the hearing, Judge Howell chastised the government for a memo sent to government agencies in the wake of her initial temporary restraining order that included "extra language" stating that the administration took the position Trump's executive order was lawful and they believed her TRO was "erroneous."
"I'll be honest -- it struck me as sort of a temper tantrum by the Department of Justice and OMB," Howell said, referencing the Office of Management and Budget. "Worthy of a three year old -- not the Department of Justice and OMB."
Dane Butswinkas, a lawyer for Perkins Coie, argued the executive order plainly retaliates against Perkins Coie, and that the Trump administration has failed to demonstrate how the move protects national security.
"This is exactly the kind of conduct the Constitution forbids," Butswinkas said, calling the order a "complete sham."
Comparing the order to the worst of the government's actions during the Red Scare, Butswinkas urged Judge Howell to defend the rule of law by blocking the order from taking effect.
"Silence and fear are the playbook of authoritarianism," Butswinkas said before thanking the other law firms, media organizations, and professors that have pushed back against the order. "Democracy may bend, it may get bruised, but what 250 years has shown is it will not break."
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.