General Discussion

mikelewis

(4,494 posts) Tue Mar 25, 2025, 06:36 PM Mar 25

Standing Against the Drift: The Constitutional Defense by Perkins Coie LLP

Introduction: In the Shadow of Drift

In an era when democratic institutions wobble under pressure, when norms once taken for granted begin to erode, and when even the law itself seems vulnerable to executive coercion, there remain individuals and institutions willing to stand their ground. This is the story of one such institution — Perkins Coie LLP — and its bold, principled defiance of an unconstitutional executive order. In the grand arc of history, their resistance may yet mark a turning point, a moment when integrity stood up to intimidation.

Part I: The Order That Went Too Far

In March 2025, the White House issued an executive order targeting Perkins Coie LLP. The order claimed the firm posed a threat to national security due to its past legal advocacy, particularly in matters involving election law and diversity policy. The penalties were swift and sweeping: government contracts severed, access to federal buildings revoked, security clearances stripped, and the firm publicly branded as a danger to democracy.

But what was Perkins Coie’s true offense? Representing clients whose political views or legal strategies did not align with those in power. That, and continuing to uphold DEI initiatives that had become ideological targets. The administration sought not justice, but submission. What followed was an attempt not to regulate, but to retaliate.

Part II: A Lawsuit for the Republic

Faced with existential threats, Perkins Coie did not fold. It did what a law firm grounded in constitutional values must: it sued the President of the United States.

In its filing, Perkins Coie laid out a stunning and deeply reasoned constitutional argument:

"Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood."

This isn’t just legalese. This is foundational democracy. The firm argued that the President’s actions constituted viewpoint discrimination, targeting legal professionals for daring to represent dissent. That’s not governance. That’s repression.

Part III: First Principles and Final Lines

The complaint went further, invoking violations of multiple constitutional pillars:

First Amendment violations: targeting the firm’s speech, its diversity commitments, and its legal associations.

Fifth Amendment violations: denial of due process, equal protection, and the right to pursue one's profession.

Sixth Amendment implications: interference with the right to counsel for clients.

Separation of Powers: substituting executive action for judicial adjudication.

As the filing so powerfully puts it:

"Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress."

Part IV: Physics, Drift, and the Power of Resistance

Political systems are not unlike physical ones. They obey the laws of momentum, pressure, feedback, and equilibrium. When institutions yield under pressure, they create space for authoritarian drift — a process measurable in real time. But when institutions resist, they generate counterforce.

Perkins Coie became that counterforce.

To oppose raw power with the quiet strength of legal argument. To stand on constitutional ground when the terrain shifts beneath. To file a lawsuit when others retreat into silence or worse. These are not small acts — they are the molecular bonds that hold democratic societies together.

Part V: Why This Moment Matters

The fight Perkins Coie chose was not for prestige or politics — it was for the continuity of law itself. In the words of their filing:

"Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited ‘diversity, equity and inclusion,’ it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

"Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."

These aren't just words — they are a moral and legal blueprint for how a free society must respond to encroaching control.

Conclusion: Celebrating Constitutional Courage

In standing firm, Perkins Coie reminded the nation — and the world — that constitutional law isn’t merely theory, and democracy is not merely rhetoric. Both must be lived and defended. Their lawsuit is a reminder that the rule of law survives only when individuals and institutions are willing to risk something to protect it.

So let us mark this moment with clarity and gratitude. In a time when others offered apologies, appeasement, and silence, Perkins Coie offered resistance, resilience, and reason.

In the physics of politics, they added mass to the side of liberty.

And in the calculus of freedom, they proved that courage still matters.

They did the math. And they showed their works.

https://abovethelaw.com/2025/03/perkins-coie-drags-trump-administration-clear-to-hell-in-new-lawsuit/