Appeals Court Hears Arguments Over Trump’s Revocation of Security Clearances and Federal Contracts for Law Firms Tied to His Opponents

A federal appeals court panel on Thursday questioned President Donald Trump’s authority to restrict federal contract work from major law firms and to revoke security clearances of attorneys at those firms. C. Circuit.

Justice Department attorney Abhishek Kambli argued that security clearance determinations are constitutionally reserved for the executive branch and are largely beyond federal courts’ review. Kambli stated that even if security clearance revocations are for improper motives, they are unreviewable.

Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judge Cornelia Pillard repeatedly appeared skeptical of the Justice Department’s position on security clearance review.

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. Perkins Coie represented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

WilmerHale employed former special counsel Robert Mueller, 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 executive 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.

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement represented the law firms and argued the orders were openly retaliatory. “The executive orders lay the president’s motives bare,” Clement said. Clement argued the orders were designed to maximize punishment against firms associated with Trump’s perceived enemies.

He stated that lawyers cannot zealously represent their clients while walking on eggshells for fear of reprisals. Judge Cornelia Pillard asked whether a president could target lawyers representing Catholics or Asian Americans. Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan questioned whether security clearances could be revoked based solely on disfavored speech unrelated to handling classified information.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison reached a deal with Trump shortly after being targeted by agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono legal work aligned with administration priorities, after which Trump rescinded the executive order. Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan suggested the reversal of the Paul Weiss order undermined claims that the orders were truly rooted in national security concerns.

Srinivasan stated that the reversal seems like it would have a bearing on whether the determination was grounded in trusting the handling of classified information.

At least nine firms eventually reached agreements with the administration. Skadden, Arps, Slate, and Meagher & Flom pledged at least $100 million in pro bono legal services as part of an agreement with the administration. The panel heard a separate appeal involving the revocation of Mark Zaid’s security clearance.

Mark Zaid’s security clearance was revoked last March by presidential memorandum. Mark Zaid is a national security lawyer who has represented intelligence officials, whistleblowers, and figures tied to Trump’s first impeachment. Abbe Lowell argued that the only thing that changed after Mr.

Zaid received an increase in his security clearance during Trump’s first term was that Mr. Zaid took on the government in representing those adverse to that same president. The district court restored Mark Zaid’s clearance while litigation proceeds, finding the administration likely acted without meaningful national security justification.

Multiple federal judges in Washington separately blocked Trump’s executive orders last year, concluding the directives likely violated constitutional protections including the First Amendment. Washington Examiner reported these developments from the back-to-back hearings.