Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—D.D.C.: Judge Howell rejects Trump administration’s disqualification motion in Perkins Coie EO case, (Mar 27, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

“When you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger.”

Judge Beryl Howell, who issued a temporary restraining order on March 12 barring the Trump administration from enforcing portions of an executive order specifically targeting the law firm Perkins Coie with punitive measures due to its representation of clients the President dislikes or opposes, has declined the administration’s motion to disqualify her in the case. Mere disagreements with the prior legal rulings of the court do not constitute a valid basis for disqualification, nor was the judge’s disqualification justified by a “nonpartisan discussion of the importance of facts” in which she engaged at a speaking event hosted by a non-profit legal services organization. Finally, although Trump and his administration promote an expansive view of presidential authority and claim that any decisions purportedly made in the name of national security are judicially nonreviewable, “that legally debatable claim is at the heart of the challenge in this case,” said Howell (Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-716 (BAH) (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2025)).

History. Judge Howell was appointed to her seat 2010 by President Obama and served as chief judge from 2016 until 2023. In her capacity as chief judge, Howell supervised federal grand juries in the district, including for Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections and subsequent investigations into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Motion to disqualify. The U.S. Department of Justice and other named Trump administration officials in the case, according to Judge Howell, filed the motion to disqualify her less than two weeks after she issued a temporary restraining order barring them from enforcing three of the five sections of Executive Order 14230, issued by President Donald J. Trump on March 6, 2025, targeting the law firm Perkins Coie LLP with punitive measures due to its representation of clients President Trump dislikes or who sought relief through litigation that he opposes.

The defendants based their motion on the claim that the federal district court has demonstrated “[s]ystematic” “disdain for President Trump,” in three referenced prior rulings and in “comments in this proceeding, other judicial proceedings, and in the public.”

Standard not met. “Although defendants’ motion is rife with innuendo,” observed Judge Howell, “none of the claims put forward come close to meeting the standard for disqualification.”

Three prior rulings. Despite the law being clear that prior rulings “[a]lmost invariably” do not provide a basis for disqualification, Howell noted, the administration defendants pointed to three prior decisions of the D.C. federal district court as suggesting bias. Here, she said, “mere disagreements with the prior legal rulings of this Court do not ‘constitute a valid basis’ for disqualification.”

Dismissal of January 6 cases. First, the administration claimed that the reasoning provided in the federal district court’s dismissal of pending charges against defendants charged with criminal conduct at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021—following Trump’s January 2025 inauguration and subsequent pardons issued to the criminal defendants in those cases—showed “hostility toward President Trump” through “disdain for his supporters.”

Here, according to Judge Howell, “The offense conduct of these dismissed defendants, similarly to the many pardoned defendants, who already had been convicted of offense conduct at the Capitol attack, ran the gamut of breaching police lines, illegally entering restricted grounds, and assaulting and impeding police officers. Their conduct—not their beliefs and not their political views—was the reason for their criminal charges.” The crux of the administration’s argument, she said, “appears to be the fact that, in explaining the decision to dismiss the pending criminal cases without prejudice, this Court did not adopt in full the President’s reasons for his issuance of the pardons,” but reasons the President gives for the exercise of his pardon power are unreviewable by the courts, and specific statements by the court in decisions granting the government’s motion to dismissing pending charges in the cases properly “reflect[] what [the Court] learned... during the proceedings.” Citing a 1976 case involving Watergate defendants, Howell observed that “Decisions from the D.C. Circuit finding that recusal was not warranted in cases involving far more critical comments made about criminal defendants reinforce this determination.”

Two rulings on grand jury matters. The defendants also relied on two decisions issued in grand jury matters, claiming the D.C. federal district court “utilized the judicial power against President Trump himself.”

Twitter warrant case. The first such decision cited as an example of purported bias involved enforcement of a search warrant issued to the company formerly known as Twitter, and while the company “ultimately complied with the warrant,” compliance only occurred “three days after a court-ordered deadline,” with which the company had agreed it could and would comply, resulting in a finding of civil contempt and the imposition of a previously-noticed sanction for the delay. And on appeal, the district court’s decision was unanimously “affirm[ed]... in all respects” by the D.C. Circuit. “To the extent defendants allege bias due to the suggestion that a flight risk may have existed were the investigation publicly revealed,” observed Howell, “they refer only to standard statutory language included in an order and omit that the D.C. Circuit specifically found that the ‘ultimate analysis’ in this Court’s decision ‘did not rely on risk of flight.’”

Subpoenas of Trump’s personal attorneys in classified documents case. The second decision cited as an example of purported bias involved grand jury subpoenas for testimony from two personal attorneys for President Trump, “as part of an investigation into whether the former president orchestrated a scheme unlawfully to retain and hide from the government documents bearing classification markings.” Here, Howell noted that the government’s motion to enforce these subpoenas and compel testimony in that case “was granted only in part and denied in part based on an extensive review of the facts and applicable legal principles, explained in an 85-page opinion,” and President Trump himself asked for the decision to be unsealed for his use in support of his motion to dismiss a criminal indictment pending against him in the Southern District of Florida. Specifically, he relied on a portion of the D.C. district court’s Crime Fraud Decision agreeing with his position presented to the Florida court that certain aspects of the prosecutor’s questioning before the grand jury were improper.

“In sum,” said Howell, “mere disagreements with the prior legal rulings of this Court do not ‘constitute a valid basis’ for disqualification.”

Speech to legal services non-profit. The administration also pointed to a single line in a speech delivered by Judge Howell in November 2023, upon acceptance of an award from the Women’s White Collar Defense Association, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that promotes diversity in white-collar and other defense and compliance legal work. To support her points in the speech about “the importance of facts in the legal profession, the body politic, and American democracy,” Howell “drew on examples from history, including an anecdote about President Abraham Lincoln,” and “quoted from a recent bestselling book by a Boston College professor of American history warning about one of the keys to the rise of authoritarianism being the dismissal of facts and reliance on ‘big lies.’”

“[T]heir finger.” Importantly, and contrary to the defendants’ assertions, according to Howell, the speech “never mentioned President Trump or took any political positions, nor named any of the media outlets, pundits or politicians cited by January 6 defendants and their counsel in court proceedings as the source for their mistaken belief in a stolen 2020 presidential election.” “To the extent defendants suggest otherwise and even point an accusatory finger at President Trump as the person who must have been the source,” noted Howell, “that is their finger and not that of this Court.”

And “[p]ut simply, the nonpartisan discussion of the importance of facts provides no basis for disqualification in this case.”

This case. Finally, as the “Purpose” section of EO 14230 made clear, “issues of the Durham investigation, the Fusion GPS report, and the Mueller Report are central to the EO,” and the administration took issue with what they called the court’s “concerning and dismissive approach to the entire Durham Investigation” and “[t]he entire Fusion GPS fiasco.” Though “styling this as an accusation about purported bias in the Court’s ‘[c]onduct,’” Howell noted, “at its core, this objection appears to be that the Court has not given sufficient deference to how President Trump views these and other events as ‘dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm...’”

Foundational constitutional principles and norms at stake. Though “the President and his administration are promoting an expansive view of presidential authority and claimed that any decisions purportedly made in the name of national security are judicially nonreviewable,” the federal district judge observed, “that legally debatable claim is at the heart of the challenge in this case.” And “[t]he mere fact that the Court, in an emergency hearing on a temporary restraining order held less than 24 hours after the filing of the motion, did not immediately adopt defendants’ legal arguments about the level of deference owed to the President, even when a national security justification is asserted, does not mean bias exists when foundational constitutional principles and norms are also at stake.”

Normal process of appeal applies. Finally, as the case continues, pursuant to the briefing schedule jointly proposed by the parties and adopted by the court, Howell noted, “the parties will have the opportunity to present relevant evidence and legal arguments, which will receive full, fair, and impartial consideration, as does every case before this Court. To the extent the parties disagree with the final judgment entered, the normal judicial process of appeal applies.”

The case is No. 25-716 (BAH).

Judge: Howell, B.

Attorneys: Amy Mason Saharia (Williams & Connolly) for Perkins Coie LLP. Douglas C. Dreier, U.S. Attorney's Office for The District of Columbia, for U.S. Department of Justice.

Companies: Perkins Coie LLP

MainStory: TopStory Procedure Retaliation GovernmentContracts RemediesDamages WhiteHouseNews IndustryNewsTrends AgencyNews DistrictofColumbiaNews GCNNews