Appeals Court Examines Whether President Can Revoke Security Clearances Without Judicial Review

Analysis
The D.C. Circuit's May 14 arguments exposed a likely doctrinal fault line, with two Obama-appointed judges pressing the government on whether clearance revocations based on race or religion would also be unreviewable, while the Trump-appointed judge focused on the constraints Lee v. Garland places on courts. Paul Weiss's settlement record, in which the firm pledged $40 million in pro bono work aligned with administration priorities before the targeting order was lifted, gave the skeptical judges their sharpest factual evidence against a bona fide national security rationale. The broader settlement pattern, with at least nine firms ultimately committing pro bono work to resolve targeting orders, undermines the government's trustworthiness framing more systematically than any individual litigant's argument could. We assess the D.C. Circuit ruling by end of 2026 is genuinely uncertain. The panel appeared hostile to the government's most expansive claim, but doctrinal constraints from Lee provide the administration a plausible path to at least partial insulation from review, and one judge on the panel is clearly sympathetic to that approach. Analytic confidence is moderate, grounded in detailed and consistent courtroom reporting from two independent primary outlets, though final doctrine will turn on internal panel deliberation the oral argument record cannot predict.