{"id":2602842,"date":"2026-05-14T17:16:50","date_gmt":"2026-05-14T21:16:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/appeals-court-weighs-trump-law-firms-and-security-clearance-revocation-orders\/"},"modified":"2026-05-14T17:23:43","modified_gmt":"2026-05-14T21:23:43","slug":"appeals-court-weighs-trump-law-firms-and-security-clearance-revocation-orders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/appeals-court-weighs-trump-law-firms-and-security-clearance-revocation-orders\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeals court weighs Trump law firms and security clearance revocation orders"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fappeals-court-weighs-trump-law-firms-and-security-clearance-revocation-orders%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2602842&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>A panel of the D.C. Circuit heard two closely related cases challenging President Trump\u2019s efforts to curtail <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/is-big-tech-bum-rushing-the-supreme-court-on-censorship\/\" title=\"Is Big Tech Bum Rushing The ... On Censorship?\">major law firms<\/a>\u2019 federal work and to revoke security clearances for attorneys tied to those firms. The judges pressed whether the management\u2019s actions-justified by national security-are actually reviewable by courts when they may be motivated by retaliation or politics.<\/p>\n<p>In the first set of hearings,the court questioned executive orders targeting firms such as Perkins Coie,WilmerHale,Jenner &#038; Block,and Susman godfrey. The firms argued the measures were plainly retaliatory: Trump sought to suspend clearances, limit access to government buildings, terminate contracts connected to their clients, and pressure contractors to disclose relationships.Their lawyers said the president\u2019s motives were exposed and that the approach threatens lawyers\u2019 independence. The Justice Department countered that security clearance decisions are constitutionally reserved to the executive branch and are therefore largely insulated from judicial review-even if the underlying motives involve protected traits or protected speech.<\/p>\n<p>The panel also focused on how some firms later reached agreements with the Administration, including arrangements that required substantial pro bono work after which the original orders were withdrawn-an outcome that led judges to question whether the actions were truly grounded in national security concerns.<\/p>\n<p>The second hearing centered on Mark Zaid, a national security attorney whose clearance was revoked last March. Unlike the broad firm cases, the dispute here focused on whether courts can review an individual clearance revocation that Zaid and his lawyers contend was retaliation-based and carried out through a presidential memorandum rather than ordinary procedures. Judges discussed a 2024 D.C. Circuit decision (lee v. Garland) that generally treated many security clearance disputes as nonjusticiable political questions.<\/p>\n<p>The appeals court did not promptly rule. Both tracks are expected to ultimately reach the Supreme Court.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<article class=\"fn-body\">\n<p>A federal appeals court panel on Thursday questioned President <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/donald-trump\/\">Donald Trump<\/a>\u2018s 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 <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2025\/03\/preventing-abuses-of-the-legal-system-and-the-federal-court\/\">\u201cunscrupulous\u201d<\/a> and partisan behavior.<\/p>\n<p>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 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/bipartisan-group-of-senators-unveil-national-security-powers-act-to-take-war-powers-away-from-biden\/\" title=\"Bipartisan group of senators unveil National Security Powers Act to take war powers away from Biden\">presidential national security powers<\/a>.<\/p>\n<section class=\"explore-more-section\" id=\"wex-recommended-widget\">\n<div class=\"magazine-container single\">\n<h1 class=\"magazine-title mt-2\">Recommended Stories<\/h1>\n<p>             <i class=\"fa-solid fa-play icon\"><\/i>         <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-grid\">\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4569500\/kash-patel-vip-snorkel-pearl-harbor-memorial\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Patel went on \u2018VIP snorkel\u2019 at Pearl Harbor memorial, emails show<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4569295\/judge-dc-nonprofit-director-repay-1-million-misused-funds\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Judge orders DC nonprofit director to repay over $1 million in misused funds<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4568237\/odni-denies-claims-cia-raided-tulsi-gabbard-office-jfk-mkultra-files\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>ODNI denies claims CIA raided Gabbard\u2019s office over JFK and MKUltra files<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<p>In both arguments, <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/department-of-justice\/\">Justice Department<\/a> attorney <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4559200\/lawyer-handling-key-trump-litigation-depart-doj\/\">Abhishek Kambli<\/a> maintained that security clearance determinations are constitutionally reserved for the executive branch and therefore largely beyond federal courts\u2019 review, even when judges posed hypotheticals involving race, religion, political affiliation, or speech.<\/p>\n<div class=\"article-paywall\">\n<p>\u201cEven if it is for improper motives, it is ultimately unreviewable,\u201d Kambli said during the law firm hearing.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-law-firms-argue-trump-orders-were-retaliatory\">Law firms argue Trump orders were retaliatory<\/h2>\n<p>The first hearing involved executive orders against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner &#038; Block, and Susman Godfrey.<\/p>\n<p>Each firm had ties to Trump adversaries. Perkins Coie represented former Secretary of State <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/hillary-clinton\/\">Hillary Clinton<\/a>\u2019s 2016 presidential campaign and WilmerHale employed former special counsel <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/white-house\/4499650\/robert-mueller-died-trump-says-glad\/\">Robert Mueller<\/a>, while Jenner &#038; Block previously employed former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann. Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in litigation against Fox News following the 2020 election.<\/p>\n<p>Trump\u2019s orders sought to suspend security clearances, restrict lawyers\u2019 access to federal buildings, terminate government contracts tied to the firms\u2019 clients, and pressure government contractors to disclose business relationships involving the firms.<\/p>\n<p>Former U.S. Solicitor General <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2211079\/veteran-supreme-court-advocate-touts-remarkable-unity-during-jacksons-first-term\/\">Paul Clement<\/a>, representing the firms, argued the orders were openly retaliatory.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe executive orders lay the president\u2019s motives bare,\u201d Clement said.<\/p>\n<p>He argued the orders were designed to \u201cmaximize punishment\u201d against firms associated with Trump\u2019s perceived enemies and warned the directives threaten the independence of the legal profession.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cLawyers cannot zealously represent their clients while walking on eggshells for fear of reprisals,\u201d Clement told the court.<\/p>\n<p>Judges repeatedly pressed Kambli on whether the administration\u2019s legal theory would allow presidents to revoke security clearances based on race, religion, or political affiliation.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Arguing for the Trump administration, Kambli maintained that the issue is nonjusticiable because the Constitution commits security clearance authority to the executive branch.<\/p>\n<p>The panel also focused heavily on Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, and Wharton &#038; Garrison <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/white-house\/3354891\/trump-order-paul-weiss-deal-law-firm\/\">reaching a deal<\/a> with Trump shortly after being targeted. The firm agreed to provide $40 million in <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >pro bono legal work aligned<\/a> with administration priorities before Trump rescinded the executive order.<\/p>\n<p>Srinivasan suggested the reversal undermined claims that the orders were truly rooted in national security concerns.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt seems like it would have a bearing \u2026 on whether the determination was grounded in trusting the handling of classified information,\u201d Srinivasan said.<\/p>\n<p>At least nine firms eventually reached agreements with the administration, including Skadden, Arps, Slate, and Meagher &#038; Flom, which pledged at least $100 million in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/anti-religious-attacks-on-jews-could-come-to-your-house-of-worship-next\/\" title=\"Anti-Religious Attacks On Jews Could Come To Your House Of Worship Next\">pro bono legal services<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-judges-scrutinize-revocation-of-mark-zaid-s-clearance\">Judges scrutinize revocation of Mark Zaid\u2019s clearance<\/h2>\n<p>The panel then heard a separate appeal involving <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4464500\/doj-says-judge-wrong-mark-zaid-clearance-restored\/\">Mark Zaid<\/a>, the longtime national security lawyer known for representing intelligence officials, whistleblowers, and figures tied to Trump\u2019s first impeachment, whose security clearance the president <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2025\/03\/rescinding-security-clearances-and-access-to-classified-information-from-specified-individuals\/\">revoked last March.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Unlike the broader law firm cases, the Zaid dispute focused solely on whether courts may review an individual clearance revocation allegedly tied to retaliation.<\/p>\n<p>Zaid\u2019s attorney argued the administration bypassed ordinary security clearance procedures and instead used a presidential memorandum to summarily revoke his clearance without individualized review.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe only thing that\u2019s happened is that Mr. Zaid got an increase in his security clearance\u201d during Trump\u2019s first term, attorney <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/white-house\/3786112\/trump-foes-longtime-washington-lawyer-abbe-lowell-defense\/\">Abbe Lowell<\/a> argued. \u201cThe only thing that changed after that was that Mr. Zaid took on the government in representing those adverse to that same president.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The judges spent significant time debating the D.C. Circuit\u2019s 2024 decision in <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/cadc\/20-5221\/20-5221-2024-10-29.html\">Lee v. Garland<\/a><\/em>, which held that many security clearance disputes are nonjusticiable political questions.<\/p>\n<p>Rao repeatedly questioned whether Zaid\u2019s claims could survive under <em>Lee<\/em>, emphasizing that the case broadly barred judicial review of revocation decisions.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4567774\/doj-dc-bar-weaponizing-discipline\/\">DOJ ACCUSES DC BAR AUTHORITY OF WEAPONIZING DISCIPLINE AGAINST FEDERAL LAWYERS<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The district court previously restored Zaid\u2019s 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\u2019s executive orders last year, concluding the directives likely violated constitutional protections, including the First Amendment, by retaliating against firms tied to the president\u2019s political opponents.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A federal appeals panel questioned Trump\u2019s power over law firms<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2602843,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/perkins-coie.webp?w=594","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[32324,32319,7976],"class_list":["post-2602842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-appeals-court","tag-donald-trump","tag-lawsuits"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/perkins-coie.webp?w=594","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2602842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2602842"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2602842\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2602851,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2602842\/revisions\/2602851"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2602843"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2602842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2602842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2602842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}