When a permanent order, which suspends the execution of the executive order of President Donald Trump, aimed at the Perkins Coie law firm, US judge Beril Howel ruled that the order was separating Perkins on the basis of the content of his speech and his actions. In conclusion, the order, violated by the rights of Perkins’ first amendment, which and his clients, Howel surprisingly refers to the text of the president’s order and the accompanying “information sheet” of his administration. But she also did something else far more unusual: Howel uses Trump’s subsequent agreements with other companies – and his praise for them – as evidence against his administration.
Trump’s order restricted the access of Perkins Coie’s attorneys to government buildings, canceled their security permits and ordered the federal agencies to terminate the contracts with the company. One of Perkins’ allegations, which in its court case was that this punishment was a revenge for the position that the company had taken over the years, including the presentation of Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president in 2016. The company showed that it had already lost customers as a result of the order and that it was likely to lose much more if the judge did not stop the order.
In determining whether Trump’s order was “non -constitutional revenge to the first amendment of the plaintiff, protected activity”, Howel accepted the company’s allegations that she had lost business – which the administration was not contested. But she also went further, turning to the administration’s deals with other law firms.
For Howel, the critical element in her assessment whether the actions of the administration are criminal and vindictive is the fact that those who have concluded agreements with the administration are spared with similar damages, such as the administration or refraining from issuing orders, or even withdrawing orders issued.
Not only the deals caught the judge’s eye, but the president and his staff boast about the agreements. For Howel, this became clear that the punishment was the very point of the White House actions in the first place.
In addition to noting the promotion of the White House of agreements with these other companies, Howel also relied on the president’s own statements on the subject. She quotes, for example, his notes at an event in early April:
Have you noticed that many law firms have registered with Trump? $ 100 million, another $ 100 million for damage they have done. But they give you $ 100 million and then announce, “We have done nothing wrong.” And I agree, they did nothing wrong. But what the hell, they gave me a lot of money, given that they did nothing wrong.
Powell also cites Trump’s remarks and advisor Stephen Miller during the signing of an order aimed at the law firm Syman Godfrey. At the event, Trump asked Miller to share the value of free legal work secured by transactions with other law firms. “The numbers are added. We’ll be close to a billion soon,” Miller replied. “As for Susman EC, who had just signed,” Howel writes: “Then President Trump said,” This one, we are just starting the process with this one. “
Although the “exact conditions of these transactions” are “somewhat blurred”, Howwell writes: “It is clear that Trump’s White House has publicly announced that the negotiation transactions reached with various law firms, and it is equally clear that these companies are spared or deducted, an enforcement order. The promotion of the government of these transactions has provided Howel with additional evidence that President Trump clearly separates retribution companies based on whether or not they have concluded agreements with the administration.
Perhaps Judge Howel’s decision would have been the same if Trump had not trumped certain companies that bend over the knee. But this president and this administration could not help themselves. They just had to boast – and Howel used their own words against them.
This article was originally published on msnbc.com