The DOJ makes a shocking confession about a terrible Trump executive order.

Key Points:

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently heard arguments in cases challenging President Trump’s executive orders targeting specific law firms and attorneys, which the administration justified as national security measures but critics see as retaliation against lawyers representing Democrats.
• The executive orders revoked security clearances, restricted access to government buildings, and threatened contracts and investigations into diversity programs at targeted firms, raising serious First, Sixth, and due process constitutional concerns.
• The government argued that security clearance decisions are wholly within presidential discretion and unreviewable by courts, a position the judges challenged by highlighting the dangerous potential for discrimination based on race or religion.
• In response to the orders, some law firms struck deals to provide pro bono services to the administration to avoid targeting, raising concerns about the privatization of public legal services amid mass DOJ departures.
• A broad coalition of nonprofits across the political spectrum opposes these orders, warning that upholding them would set a precedent for unchecked executive power and undermine judicial oversight, with parallels drawn to recent controversial Supreme Court rulings limiting court review of political matters.