Perkins Coie, a prominent Democrat-aligned law firm, was sanctioned this month by President Donald Trump for the overt lawfare it has engaged in against him over the past decade, including assisting the failed 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign in creating and distributing the debunked and fraudulent "Steele dossier" full of false claims of Trump-Russia collusion.

The firm hit back with a lawsuit against the administration, and now the administration is calling for the overtly biased district judge presiding over that suit to be recused and replaced by a less openly adversarial jurist, according to The Hill.

That unapologetically anti-Trump judge is Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, who has overseen multiple cases over the years involving Trump or his supporters and who has been decidedly antagonistic toward them both in court and in public settings.

Sanctions against Perkins Coie

On March 6, President Trump issued an executive order to address the "dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP," which notably included "in 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false 'dossier' designed to steal an election."

Trump's order also called out the firm for its oppositional lawsuits against election integrity laws nationwide as well as for its racist and divisive "diversity, equity, and inclusion" policies that likely violate federal civil rights laws against discrimination based on race or sex.

As such, Trump ordered that, within the limitations of the law, all Perkins Coie partners and employees be stripped of security clearances and access to classified information, federal buildings, federal contracts, and federal jobs, among other punitive measures, including investigation of the firm's discriminatory hiring practices by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Judge Howell is not an unbiased or neutral arbiter

Unsurprisingly, Perkins Coie fought back with a lawsuit that demanded a temporary restraining order to block President Trump's order, which, according to The Hill, was preliminarily granted by D.C. District Judge Howell following an initial hearing after the suit was assigned to her.

The Department of Justice, however, is now urging Howell to recuse herself and have the case reassigned to another judge because of her openly and repeatedly displayed "animus" and "partiality" against Trump and those who support him.

In an eight-page motion filed on Friday, Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson, joined by Acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle, wrote, "Fair proceedings free from any suggestion of impartiality are essential to the integrity of our country’s judiciary and the need to curtail ongoing improper encroachments of President Trump’s Executive Power playing out across the country."

"In this case, reasonable observers may well view this Court as insufficiently impartial to adjudicate the meritless challenges to President Trump’s efforts to implement the agenda that the American people elected him to carry out," they continued. "In fact, this Court has repeatedly demonstrated partiality against and animus towards the President."

Some examples of Howell's bias include, per The Hill, her anti-Trump rulings in the cases involving former Special Counsel Jack Smith, including her declaring Trump a "flight risk," as well as her referring to Trump as an "authoritarian" during a public speech, her involvement in former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation against Trump, her rulings against Elon Musk's Twitter, and her exceedingly tough stance and sentences against Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants, among other displays of antipathy toward the president.

Defendants deserve an impartial judge

"This case involves serious concerns about election integrity, national security, and the past actions of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP," the DOJ's motion stated. "Given the statements made by the Court at the initial hearing in this matter and its out-of-court statements, the Court’s impartiality in this case might reasonably be questioned."

"Accordingly, Defendants respectfully submit that this matter should be transferred to another district court judge who was neither involved with the Mueller Report nor the investigation of Special Counsel John Durham ('Durham Investigation') and who has not demonstrated a pattern of hostility towards Defendants," the officials requested.

In conclusion, the motion reiterated, "Defendants deserve a court proceeding free from concerns about impartiality. In order to remove the possibility of any impartiality to these proceedings, Defendants respectfully request that this Court recuse itself and return this matter to assignment before a judge free from any appearance of hostility toward this Administration and is otherwise unconnected with any matter related to the Mueller Report or Durham Investigation."