Judge overstepped by ordering Mark Zaid’s security clearance restored: DOJ
Law enforcement shouldn't be political.
The Justice Department this week asked a federal appeals court to reverse a district judge’s order restoring national security lawyer Mark Zaid’s security clearance, arguing the ruling improperly intruded on presidential authority over classified information.
In a brief filed Wednesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Trump administration argued that decisions about who may access sensitive national security material are constitutionally within the executive branch’s purview and are not subject to judicial second-guessing.
The Department of Justice building is seen in Washington, Dec. 7, 2024. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“The Constitution commits the question whether to deny or revoke a security clearance to the Executive Branch,” government lawyers wrote, arguing courts lack authority to review such determinations. 
Zaid is a longtime national security attorney who has represented intelligence officials, federal employees, and whistleblowers in disputes with the government. He gained national prominence for representing the whistleblower whose complaint about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine helped trigger Trump’s first impeachment, and he has continued to represent whistleblowers during Trump’s second term.
The dispute stems from a March presidential memorandum directing agencies to revoke the security clearance of Zaid and 36 others after Trump determined it was no longer in the national interest for them to access classified information. Federal agencies subsequently implemented that directive and cut off his access.
Zaid had maintained a security clearance for more than two decades as part of his legal practice. In the midst of his first impeachment threat, Trump said at the time Zaid “should be sued and maybe for treason,” emphasizing the president’s long-standing disapproval of the lawyer.
In December, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, issued a preliminary injunction ordering the government to restore Zaid’s clearance. Ali found the administration acted in “retribution” and without providing the kind of individualized national security assessment typically used in clearance decisions, concluding Zaid was likely to succeed on constitutional claims tied to due process and free speech.
The DOJ called Ali’s decision an “extraordinary order” that overrode the president’s judgment on national security matters.
“The District Court rested its order …
Law enforcement shouldn't be political.
The Justice Department this week asked a federal appeals court to reverse a district judge’s order restoring national security lawyer Mark Zaid’s security clearance, arguing the ruling improperly intruded on presidential authority over classified information.
In a brief filed Wednesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Trump administration argued that decisions about who may access sensitive national security material are constitutionally within the executive branch’s purview and are not subject to judicial second-guessing.
The Department of Justice building is seen in Washington, Dec. 7, 2024. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“The Constitution commits the question whether to deny or revoke a security clearance to the Executive Branch,” government lawyers wrote, arguing courts lack authority to review such determinations. 
Zaid is a longtime national security attorney who has represented intelligence officials, federal employees, and whistleblowers in disputes with the government. He gained national prominence for representing the whistleblower whose complaint about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine helped trigger Trump’s first impeachment, and he has continued to represent whistleblowers during Trump’s second term.
The dispute stems from a March presidential memorandum directing agencies to revoke the security clearance of Zaid and 36 others after Trump determined it was no longer in the national interest for them to access classified information. Federal agencies subsequently implemented that directive and cut off his access.
Zaid had maintained a security clearance for more than two decades as part of his legal practice. In the midst of his first impeachment threat, Trump said at the time Zaid “should be sued and maybe for treason,” emphasizing the president’s long-standing disapproval of the lawyer.
In December, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, issued a preliminary injunction ordering the government to restore Zaid’s clearance. Ali found the administration acted in “retribution” and without providing the kind of individualized national security assessment typically used in clearance decisions, concluding Zaid was likely to succeed on constitutional claims tied to due process and free speech.
The DOJ called Ali’s decision an “extraordinary order” that overrode the president’s judgment on national security matters.
“The District Court rested its order …
Judge overstepped by ordering Mark Zaid’s security clearance restored: DOJ
Law enforcement shouldn't be political.
The Justice Department this week asked a federal appeals court to reverse a district judge’s order restoring national security lawyer Mark Zaid’s security clearance, arguing the ruling improperly intruded on presidential authority over classified information.
In a brief filed Wednesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Trump administration argued that decisions about who may access sensitive national security material are constitutionally within the executive branch’s purview and are not subject to judicial second-guessing.
The Department of Justice building is seen in Washington, Dec. 7, 2024. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“The Constitution commits the question whether to deny or revoke a security clearance to the Executive Branch,” government lawyers wrote, arguing courts lack authority to review such determinations. 
Zaid is a longtime national security attorney who has represented intelligence officials, federal employees, and whistleblowers in disputes with the government. He gained national prominence for representing the whistleblower whose complaint about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine helped trigger Trump’s first impeachment, and he has continued to represent whistleblowers during Trump’s second term.
The dispute stems from a March presidential memorandum directing agencies to revoke the security clearance of Zaid and 36 others after Trump determined it was no longer in the national interest for them to access classified information. Federal agencies subsequently implemented that directive and cut off his access.
Zaid had maintained a security clearance for more than two decades as part of his legal practice. In the midst of his first impeachment threat, Trump said at the time Zaid “should be sued and maybe for treason,” emphasizing the president’s long-standing disapproval of the lawyer.
In December, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, issued a preliminary injunction ordering the government to restore Zaid’s clearance. Ali found the administration acted in “retribution” and without providing the kind of individualized national security assessment typically used in clearance decisions, concluding Zaid was likely to succeed on constitutional claims tied to due process and free speech.
The DOJ called Ali’s decision an “extraordinary order” that overrode the president’s judgment on national security matters.
“The District Court rested its order …
0 Comments
0 Shares
47 Views
0 Reviews
