The judge strikes Trump’s executive order that targets the law firm Perkins Koy Donald Trump News

The US provincial judge has canceled an executive order from President Donald Trump targeting law firm Perkins Koy for its representation of his opponent in the democratic elections, Hillary Clinton.

Friday in Washington, DC, Judge Bereil A Hoil issued a five -page order announcing the matter of unconstitutional executive.

“The executive order 14230 is illegal, null and void in its entirety, and therefore it should be ignored,” he wrote.

The ruling is the first to permanently cancel one of Trump’s executive orders against a law firm. It is expected to resume its administration.

As part of Judge Haul’s order, the Trump administration must stop any investigations in Perkins Koy, restore any canceled services and allow the law firm to resume its “regular business path” with the government.

In her 102 -page full decision, Judge Hawlad clarified the logical basis, declaring Trump’s executive order to “an unprecedented attack” on the “founding principles” of the country.

She said in her opening lines: “No American president has previously issued executive orders such as those in this lawsuit.” “In the purpose and influence, this procedure is derived from the old playing book such as Shakespeare, which formulated the phrase:” The first thing we do, let’s kill all lawyers. “

“Let’s kill the lawyers I do not like.”

The case started on March 6, when Trump published the 14230 executive order under the title, “Treating risk from Perkins Coie LLP”.

Quoting the work of the law firm with Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, the executive order stopped the law company’s security permits, united their arrival at government buildings and ordered agencies to end contracts with Perkins Coie when it is possible.

A handful of other law firms has also been targeted by executive orders, including Wilmerhale, Paul Weiss and Jenner & Block. Many were either favorable reasons for Trump or they had individuals with whom the president expressed their dissatisfaction.

But the idea that the president can withdraw services, security permits, and even build access – simply because he did not agree to a law firm – raised questions about the constitutionality of those orders.

Critics indicated that the first amendment to the United States constitution protects individuals and companies from facing government revenge for freedom of expression. Meanwhile, the fifth and sixth amendments protect the right to legal procedures and the right to search for a legal advisor from law companies such as Birkins Koy.

Several law firm customers had cases closely involved with the government’s internal actions. In her files, Perkins Koy said in her files that her lawyer had “necessarily interacting with the federal government on behalf of its agents.”

He also added that some of its clients began to reconsider working with Perkins Koy, in light of the executive order.

In April, More than 500 lawyers I signed a summary of Amicus to support Perkins Koy, on the pretext that Trump’s actions “will threaten any lawyer’s office” – and the intimidation of customers.

Judge Hawwal has verified these concerns in her decision, saying that the law office “showed sufficient cash damage to proving irreparable damage.” It also described the executive matter as “an public attempt to suppress and punish certain views.”

But instead of facing such a punitive procedure, many prominent law firms have decided an agreement with the White House.

It was believed that Paul Weiss was the first to hit a deal, as the administration provided $ 40 million in free legal services. Others followed his followers: Skadden, MilBank and Willkie Farr & Gallagher have agreed to perform $ 100 million in free legal services.

In her ruling, Judge Hawl warned that Trump’s executive orders against law firms could have a chilling effect on the entire profession and that it was tantamount to seizing power.

“Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a great obstacle to the road to more power,” she wrote.

She added that the constitution: “The government should respond to discourse, opposition ideas, or ideas with” tolerance, not coercion. “