Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
PERKINS COIE LLP v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
Case Number:
1:25-cv-00716
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Eimer Stahl
- Herrera Arellano
- Kaiser PLLC
- Kalbian & Hagerty
- Kropf Moseley
- Munger Tolles
- Osborn Maledon
- Regan Zambri
- Sher Tremonte
- Susman Godfrey
- Wheeler Trigg
- Williams & Connolly
Companies
- American Civil Liberties Union
- Cato Institute
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Institute for Justice
- Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
- NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund Inc.
- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
- National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
- The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Government Agencies
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Executive Office of the President
- Federal Communications Commission
- Office of the Director of National Intelligence
- U.S. Department of Justice
- U.S. General Services Administration
- US Office of Management and Budget
- U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Sectors & Industries:
-
March 13, 2025
Meet The Attys Helping Perkins Coie Fight Trump Order
As it fights the Trump administration over an executive order targeting the firm, Perkins Coie LLP has turned to a small army of attorneys with the Washington, D.C., litigation firm Williams & Connolly LLP.
-
March 12, 2025
Judge Blocks Order Limiting Perkins Coie Government Access
A D.C. federal judge on Wednesday halted enforcement of the Trump administration's executive order against law firm Perkins Coie LLP that cited issues including its representation of Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential run, calling the order "viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple."
-
March 11, 2025
Perkins Coie Slams Trump's Executive Order Retaliation
Perkins Coie LLP sued the Trump administration Tuesday over an executive order targeting the firm for its diversity-focused hiring efforts and its representation of certain political figures including former Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, calling the order "an affront to the Constitution" that aims to chill future representation of certain clients.
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next →