D.C. federal district court Judge Beryl Howell issued a temporary restraining order earlier this month against President Donald Trump at the request of the powerhouse law firm Perkins Coie, restricting the president from criticizing the firm to any of its clients, regardless of whether his criticisms may be factual.

The judge’s sweeping order prevents the president of the United States from publicly citing the Federal Election Commission’s finding that Perkins Coie mischaracterized campaign expenditures on opposition research as “legal expenses.”

The campaign expenditure in question was much more than some trivial or technical violation of election law. What happened in this case is that Perkins Coie hired the firm Fusion GPS, which procured the Steele Dossier accusing Trump of colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election. Perkins Coie’s agents then fed the dossier to the FBI as part of a smear campaign orchestrated by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Clinton herself brought up the accusation during one of the presidential debates.

Willing dupes within the intelligence community then sponsored the opposition research to a Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) court to obtain warrants they used to spy on Trump campaign figure Carter Page. Later, the dossier was used as a pretext to launch a ridiculous campaign of lawfare conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller’s investigation hamstrung the president’s first term and played a role in the Republican Party’s losses during the 2018 midterm elections. It was the dirtiest political trick in American history, which came to be known as the Russia Collusion Hoax, or “Russiagate.”

President Trump raised these and other complaints about the law firm in a March 6 executive order. Trump’s distinctive style of communication left its mark on the text. “The dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP (Perkins Coie) has affected this country for decades,” the order reads.

Since Judge Howell is trying to censor the claims the president makes in this order, we should consider whether there’s any truth to them.

Being familiar with Trump’s grievance, we can infer that he uses the term “dishonest” in reference to the Russiagate hoax. Most Americans have come to understand that Clinton’s allegations that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, despite years and millions of dollars spent in investigation, did not pan out. Trump was never convicted or even charged with any act of collusion with the Russians during the 2016 campaign. Thus, he deserves the legal presumption of innocence. Having never been convicted of colluding with the Russians, isn’t he legally entitled to claim the dossier procured by Perkins Coie is dishonest?

What about Trump’s characterization of Perkins Coie’s actions as “dangerous?” In December 2016, the Clinton campaign called for an “intelligence briefing” of the presidential electors. What they really wanted was for the intelligence community to sponsor the Steele Dossier in order to convince the Electoral College electors to overturn the election results. They called them the “Hamilton Electors,” referring to a supposed loophole in the Constitution allowing “faithless electors” to disregard the voters and substitute in their own preferences. If that plot had worked, Clinton would have become president using a gimmick that overturned the election night results. Might President Trump be permitted to suggest that such a plot was “dangerous?”

Trump went on to accuse Perkins Coie of working with George Soros to overturn “popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws, including those requiring voter identification.” Perkins Coie did not directly dispute that allegation but argued that such activities are protected activity under the Constitution. So again, is the underlying allegation true? Did Perkins Coie work with George Soros to reverse or undermine election integrity laws?

Trump then accuses Perkins Coie of violating the law through its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Knowing Trump’s grievances, he’s likely citing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which “outlaws discrimination against a job seeker or employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex… or national origin.” The “equity” part of DEI has always been illegal under that provision. Every employment lawyer knows that. But, under Judge Howell’s order, Trump cannot express that opinion if he’s interacting with Perkins Coie or any one of its clients.

Howell’s order intrudes upon Trump’s Article II right to publish factual information and executive opinions to implement executive action. His executive order directed that

the heads of all agencies shall review all contracts with Perkins Coie… To the extent permitted by law, the heads of agencies shall: (i) take appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, for which Perkins Coie has been hired to perform any service.

Judge Howell ordered the Trump administration not to implement that section of the order. In other words, the judge is preventing Trump from firing Perkins Coie as part of his duty in executing the laws of the United States.

Doesn’t a president have a right to inform the public as to why he chooses not to spend taxpayer money on a particular law firm he no longer trusts? Not according to Judge Howell’s order. Howell’s argument is that such a public declaration might reach the ears of a Perkins Coie client. Wouldn’t every law firm love to have a judge who could be relied upon to protect them from public criticism—even when those criticisms are true?

Unfortunately for the president, his attorneys have not pushed back on Judge Howell’s order. This is particularly troubling because Howell has also ordered Trump not to ask anyone if they’re using Perkins Coie. So Trump has been ordered not to criticize Perkins Coie to its clients and the identities of those clients are to remain secret. Instead of objecting to this temporary restraining order or asking for a modification, the Justice Department agreed to extend it until final judgment. That could be months from now, or even years.

The temporary restraining order is particularly problematic because it establishes a precedent for a single federal judge enjoining the president from expressing opinions grounded in fundamentally plausible interpretations of events that affect his executive function. While this particular order may not, in itself, represent a major restraint on the executive branch’s freedom of action, the next order will have this precedent to build upon. A restraint on the president’s speech is an infringement, not only of a president’s ability to carry out his duties, but of the entire principle of self-government. 

Although the Justice Department filed a motion for the removal of Judge Howell, it has not contested her temporary order. This is baffling considering the obvious infringement it imposes on executive prerogative.

The Justice Department’s challenge to Howell as the sitting district judge is probably warranted given her long history of public animus toward the president. But even a replacement judge cannot be expected to cancel an unconstitutional restraining order if the president’s attorney won’t challenge it.

I called the Justice Department attorney who signed the status report that agrees to the extension of the temporary restraining order. I disclosed that I was working on a piece questioning the absence of any challenge to it. He refused to comment and referred me to the Justice Department media website. Although I submitted the media inquiry with a deadline, the department has not returned my request for comment. We can only hope the president has better luck obtaining an explanation.