Donald Trump suffers double legal setback in 24 hours

President Donald Trump has faced two legal setbacks in the past 24 hours, with court orders blocking his administration’s revocation of an attorney’s security clearance and stopping it from deploying National Guard troops in Chicago.

In a ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington, D.C. granted Mark Zaid’s request for a preliminary injunction in part, saying the administration’s revocation of his security clearance was “retribution against a lawyer because he represented whistleblowers and other clients who complained about the government.”

Also on Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area to support its immigration crackdown.

Newsweek contacted the White House and Zaid via emails sent outside regular business hours for comment.

Why It Matters

The two decisions demonstrate the legal constraints confronting Trump since his return to the White House in January.

The revocation of Zaid’s security clearance was part of broader retribution campaign Trump has waged since his return to office. Zaid has long been a target of the president’s fury. In 2019, he represented a whistleblower whose account of a conservation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky led to the first of two impeachment cases against the Republican in his first term. 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a significant defeat for the president’s efforts to send troops to U.S. cities to support his administration’s immigration crackdown. Trump has previously won repeated victories in emergency appeals to the conservative-dominated court since he took office again. 

What To Know 

Zaid’s lawsuit, filed in May, challenges a March presidential memorandum that listed a group of individuals who the White House asserted were unsuitable to retain their clearances because it was “no longer in the national interest” for those individuals to access classified information.

In his lawsuit, Zaid called it an act of “improper political retribution” that hindered his ability to continue representing clients in sensitive national security cases. The lawsuit said he currently represents multiple clients “for whom he now cannot access relevant classified information as part of his effective and zealous representation.”

The lawsuit says Zaid, who specializes in national security law, has represented clients across the political spectrum for nearly 35 years, including government officials, law enforcement and military officers and whistleblowers.

In his ruling, Ali notes the Constitution “forbids government officials from using their power to retaliate against people for their speech, and that is so even when the speech is critical of the government.”

Ali wrote that the Trump administration had canceled Zaid’s security clearance “without any of the process that is afforded to others” and “does not meaningfully rebut” that the decision was based on Zaid’s “prior legal work for clients adverse to the government.”

He goes on to say that it is “well established that the executive branch’s exclusive power to determine who satisfies the eligibility criteria for security clearance does not mean it can conduct that determination however it wants and free from the Constitution’s limits.”

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Tuesday declined the Trump administration’s emergency request to overturn a lower court’s ruling that had blocked the deployment of troops to the Chicago area. U.S. District Judge April Perry had blocked the move and a federal appeals court declined to intervene.

The Supreme Court acted after more than two months.

“At this preliminary stage, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the high court majority wrote.

Three justices—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch—publicly dissented.

Alito and Thomas said in their dissent that the court had no basis to reject Trump’s contention that the administration needed the troops to enforce immigration laws. Gorsuch said he would have narrowly sided with the government based on the declarations of federal law enforcement officials.

What People Are Saying 

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Newsweek about the Supreme Court’s opinion: “The president promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters. He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property. Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda. The administration will continue working day in and day out to safeguard the American public.”

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, a Democrat, said on X that the Supreme Court’s ruling is “a big win for Illinois and American democracy.”

He added: “I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized Guard in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism.”

Mark Zaid told The Guardian newspaper earlier this year that he filed the lawsuit to ensure due process and the rule of law are followed. He said: “I didn’t do anything. I’m caught up in this political, vindictive battle, so my hope is the lawsuit certainly will reinstate my clearance, but will also hold this administration accountable to the rule of law.”

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court’s order is not a final ruling, but it could affect other lawsuits challenging Trump’s attempts to deploy the military in other Democratic-led cities.

The preliminary injunction granted to Zaid is stayed until January 13 to provide the government with an opportunity to consider its next steps, including whether to appeal. The government has until December 30 to advise the court of its proposed next steps, the judge’s order says.