On Wednesday, March 26, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia Beryl Howell denied a motion from the Trump administration to remove her from a lawsuit involving Perkins Coie LLP, a law firm targeted by an executive order from President Donald Trump. The judge issued a strongly worded ruling, dismissing the administration’s claims of bias as baseless and accusing them of attempting to undermine the judicial process.
The legal dispute began earlier in March when Trump signed an executive order aimed at Perkins Coie, a firm known for representing prominent Democratic figures, including Hillary Clinton. The order sought to penalize the firm by revoking security clearances for its attorneys, canceling any federal contracts with the company, and prohibiting its employees from entering federal buildings. In response, Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit challenging the order’s legality. Judge Howell, presiding over the case, issued a temporary restraining order earlier in the month, halting parts of the executive order’s enforcement while the court battle unfolded.
The Trump administration then filed a motion to disqualify Howell, alleging she had consistently demonstrated prejudice against the president. They pointed to her past rulings as evidence of what they described as a deep-seated bias. However, in her Wednesday decision, Howell rejected these assertions, stating that the motion relied on conjecture rather than solid proof.
In her ruling, Howell emphasized that the administration’s arguments amounted to little more than an effort to discredit her personally rather than engage with the legal substance of the case. She criticized the Department of Justice attorneys representing the Trump administration, suggesting their motion resembled political rhetoric more than a legitimate legal argument. Howell further noted that such tactics risked damaging public trust in the federal judiciary by casting doubt on its impartiality.
The judge also addressed specific examples raised by the administration, including a prior grand jury decision they claimed showed her hostility toward Trump. She countered that this ruling might have remained confidential indefinitely had Trump himself not requested its release to support his defense in a separate criminal case in Florida. Howell argued that this undermined the administration’s narrative of judicial overreach.
In her decision, Howell stressed the importance of an independent judiciary that evaluates cases fairly, regardless of the federal government’s involvement or the president’s preferences. She dismissed the disqualification motion as lacking any credible foundation, accusing the administration of attempting to shift focus from the weaknesses in their legal position to the judge overseeing the case.
The ruling concluded with Howell affirming that both sides would have the chance to present their evidence and arguments as the case progresses. She assured that all submissions would receive thorough and unbiased review, consistent with her approach to every matter before her court. If either party disagrees with the final outcome, Howell noted, they could pursue an appeal through standard judicial channels.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
