An appeals court weighed Trump’s law firm crackdown and security clearance revocations tied to political retaliation claims.
‘s authority to restrict federal contract work from major law firms and a separate effort to revoke the security clearances from attorneys at these firms, whom the government says engaged in The back-to-back hearings before the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit centered on whether courts can review security clearance decisions allegedly motivated by retaliation or politics, or whether such decisions are effectively immune from judicial scrutiny under presidential national security powers.maintained that security clearance determinations are constitutionally reserved for the executive branch and therefore largely beyond federal courts’ review, even when judges posed hypotheticals involving race, religion, political affiliation, or speech.
“Even if it is for improper motives, it is ultimately unreviewable,” Kambli said during the law firm hearing. Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judge Cornelia Pillard, appointees of former President Barack Obama, repeatedly appeared skeptical of that position, while Trump-appointed Judge Neomi Rao focused more heavily on limits courts face in reviewing national security judgments. The first hearing involved executive orders against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey.
, while Jenner & Block previously employed former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann. Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in litigation against Fox News following the 2020 election. Trump’s orders sought to suspend security clearances, restrict lawyers’ access to federal buildings, terminate government contracts tied to the firms’ clients, and pressure government contractors to disclose business relationships involving the firms.
He argued the orders were designed to “maximize punishment” against firms associated with Trump’s perceived enemies and warned the directives threaten the independence of the legal profession.
“Lawyers cannot zealously represent their clients while walking on eggshells for fear of reprisals,” Clement told the court. Judges repeatedly pressed Kambli on whether the administration’s legal theory would allow presidents to revoke security clearances based on race, religion, or political affiliation. Pillard, for example, asked whether a president could target lawyers representing Catholics or Asian Americans. Srinivasan separately questioned whether security clearances could be revoked based solely on disfavored speech unrelated to handling classified information.
Arguing for the Trump administration, Kambli maintained that the issue is nonjusticiable because the Constitution commits security clearance authority to the executive branch.with Trump shortly after being targeted. The firm agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono legal work aligned with administration priorities before Trump rescinded the executive order. Srinivasan suggested the reversal undermined claims that the orders were truly rooted in national security concerns.
“It seems like it would have a bearing … on whether the determination was grounded in trusting the handling of classified information,” Srinivasan said. At least nine firms eventually reached agreements with the administration, including Skadden, Arps, Slate, and Meagher & Flom, which pledged at least $100 million in pro bono legal services.
, the longtime national security lawyer known for representing intelligence officials, whistleblowers, and figures tied to Trump’s first impeachment, whose security clearance the presidentUnlike the broader law firm cases, the Zaid dispute focused solely on whether courts may review an individual clearance revocation allegedly tied to retaliation. Zaid’s attorney argued the administration bypassed ordinary security clearance procedures and instead used a presidential memorandum to summarily revoke his clearance without individualized review.
“The only thing that’s happened is that Mr. Zaid got an increase in his security clearance” during Trump’s first term, attorneyargued. “The only thing that changed after that was that Mr. Zaid took on the government in representing those adverse to that same president. ”The district court previously restored Zaid’s clearance while litigation proceeds, finding the administration likely acted without meaningful national security justification.
In related law firm cases, multiple federal judges in Washington separately blocked Trump’s executive orders last year, concluding the directives likely violated constitutional protections, including the First Amendment, by retaliating against firms tied to the president’s political opponents. The appeals court did not immediately rule in either case. Both disputes are widely expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court, regardless of how the appeals court rules.
Patel went on ‘VIP snorkel’ at Pearl Harbor memorial, emails showODNI denies claims CIA raided Gabbard’s office over JFK and MKUltra filesDOJ seeks pause in law firm executive order cases, pending decision in...
Please follow us on Google to support us United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Appeals court spares Trump from paying $83 million defamation award to E. Jean Carroll — for nowThe 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a request by one of Trump's lawyers that it let the president delay the payment to E. Jean Carroll.
Read more »
Appeals court lets Trump delay paying $83-million defamation award to E. Jean CarrollThe 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a request by one of Trump's lawyers to let the president delay the payment to E. Jean Carroll.
Read more »
Appeals court pauses Trump’s $83 million payment to E. Jean Carroll pending Supreme Court actionKyla Guilfoil is a breaking news reporter on the politics team for NBC News Digital.
Read more »
Appeals court spares Trump from paying $83M defamation award to E. Jean Carroll — for nowPresident Donald Trump won't have to pay an $83 million defamation award to columnist E. Jean Carroll until the Supreme Court gets a chance to review the case or reject an appeal.
Read more »