You don't usually see 500 law firms—including fierce competitors who spend their days trying to outmaneuver each other—suddenly holding hands. But that is exactly what happened in the spring of 2025. It wasn't a networking event or a merger. It was an emergency. When the Perkins Coie amicus brief hit the docket in the District of Columbia, it represented a "red alert" moment for the American legal system.
The backstory is wild. On March 6, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14230, titled "Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP." It wasn't just a slap on the wrist. The order basically tried to excommunicate the firm from federal existence. It suspended security clearances for all its lawyers, told agencies to kill contracts with any clients who used the firm, and even tried to ban their employees from entering federal buildings.
The government's reasoning? They claimed the firm engaged in "dishonest and dangerous activity" related to the 2016 election and "racially discriminated" through its DEI programs.
Perkins Coie didn't just sit there. They sued. And almost immediately, the "friend of the court" (amicus) briefs started pouring in like a flood.
What the Perkins Coie Amicus Brief Actually Says
If you read the filings, the tone isn't just "we disagree." It’s "this is an existential threat to how law works."
The primary amicus brief, led by firms like Munger, Tolles & Olson and signed by over 500 others, argues a pretty simple point: if the President can bankrupt a law firm because he doesn't like who they represent, nobody is safe. It’s about the Independence of the Bar. Honestly, if the government can pick and choose which lawyers are "allowed" to work based on their political history, the whole adversarial system breaks.
Think about it. Lawyers are supposed to be "zealous advocates." If you're a lawyer and you know that winning a case against the government might mean your firm loses its security clearances or its office access, are you really going to fight as hard? Probably not. That's what the briefs call a "chilling effect."
🔗 Read more: Stock Market Today Hours: Why Timing Your Trade Is Harder Than You Think
The "Bill of Attainder" Problem
One of the most fascinating briefs came from a group of 27 former senior government officials and the Yale Rule of Law Clinic. They used a term you probably haven't heard since high school civics: Bill of Attainder.
Basically, the Constitution forbids the government from passing a law or order that singles out a specific person or group for punishment without a trial. By naming "Perkins Coie" specifically in the title of an Executive Order and stripping their rights, the administration did exactly that. It's a "trial by executive decree," which is a big no-no in a democracy.
A Strange List of Bedfellows
The most telling thing about this whole saga is who signed these briefs. Usually, the ACLU and the Cato Institute are at each other's throats. One is the gold standard for liberal civil liberties; the other is a libertarian powerhouse.
But they both signed onto an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie.
Why? Because the principle of Viewpoint Discrimination is a bipartisan nightmare. If the government can punish Perkins Coie for representing Democrats, a future administration could theoretically do the same to a firm that represents conservative causes or gun rights groups.
The list of signatories reads like a "Who's Who" of the legal world:
💡 You might also like: Kimberly Clark Stock Dividend: What Most People Get Wrong
- 363 law professors from places like Harvard, Stanford, and Yale.
- Retired federal judges like J. Michael Luttig (a conservative heavyweight).
- Bar associations from New York to D.C.
- 21 State Attorneys General.
Even firms that were also being targeted—like WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—were part of this massive legal counter-offensive. It was basically the entire legal profession saying, "You can't do this."
Why This Matters for the Rest of Us
You might think, "Why should I care about a bunch of wealthy lawyers in D.C.?"
Fair question. But the amicus briefs highlight a ripple effect. If large firms like Perkins Coie can be bullied, small firms and solo practitioners are basically sitting ducks. A brief filed by 334 solo lawyers pointed out that they don't have the "institutional buffers" to survive a government attack.
If the government can block a firm from representing a client, then you, as a citizen, lose your Sixth Amendment right to the counsel of your choice. It turns the legal market into a "permission-based" system where only government-approved lawyers get to handle big cases. That's a scary thought whether you're a CEO or a social activist.
What the Court Decided
The judicial response was swift. Judge Beryl Howell didn't mince words. On May 2, 2025, she granted summary judgment for Perkins Coie, calling the Executive Order an "unprecedented attack" on the rule of law. She effectively killed the order, ruling that it violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
The government appealed, of course. As of early 2026, the case is still bouncing around the D.C. Circuit, but the permanent injunction remains in place. The amicus briefs were a huge part of this victory; they showed the judge that this wasn't just a private beef between one firm and one President, but a systemic crisis.
📖 Related: Online Associate's Degree in Business: What Most People Get Wrong
Actionable Insights for Businesses and Legal Teams
If you're running a business or managing a legal department, this case is a massive case study in risk and constitutional boundaries.
1. Watch your "Political" Footprint
While the courts protected Perkins Coie, the initial chaos was a reminder that firms are increasingly being targeted for their "purpose" and "DEI" initiatives. Review your internal policies to ensure they are legally robust and clearly tied to business objectives to withstand "retaliation" scrutiny.
2. Diversity is a Legal Shield
Part of the defense in the amicus briefs was that Perkins Coie's diverse representation is a core part of the legal profession's duty. Maintaining a broad client base—across the political spectrum—can actually be a form of protection against claims of "partisan bias."
3. The Power of the "Amicus Strategy"
If your organization ever finds itself in a David-vs-Goliath battle with a government agency, don't go it alone. The Perkins Coie case proves that gathering a "cross-ideological" coalition of amici can move the needle in a way that a single plaintiff cannot.
4. Check Your Security Clearance Clauses
For firms doing government work, the ease with which the Executive tried to pull clearances was a wake-up call. Ensure your contracts have strong due process protections and aren't entirely at the "discretion" of a single political appointee.
The Perkins Coie amicus brief wasn't just a document. It was a line in the sand. It reminded the world that while the President has a lot of power, they don't have the power to dismantle the legal profession just because a firm's client list is "annoying" to the administration.