Judge Blocks Trump Clearance Revocation and Chicago Guard Deployment in Dual Legal Setbacks
Updated (2 articles)
Judge Amir Ali Issues Injunction Halting Clearance Revocation U.S. District Judge Amir Ali granted Mark Zaid a preliminary injunction on Dec 24, 2025, barring enforcement of the March presidential memorandum that sought to strip Zaid and 14 others of their security clearances. The order preserves Zaid’s clearance and will remain in effect until Jan 13, 2026, giving the administration a deadline to report its next steps by Dec 30, 2025 [1][2]. The ruling characterizes the revocation attempt as “retribution against a lawyer” for representing whistleblowers and other critical clients.
Injunction Limited to Memo-Related Actions Only Judge Ali clarified that the injunction does not halt ordinary clearance processes unrelated to the March memo, restricting relief solely to actions tied to that specific document [1]. This narrow scope leaves the broader executive authority to grant or deny clearances intact, while preventing the administration from acting on the targeted list until the court’s final decision.
Zaid’s Lawsuit Accuses Administration of Political Retaliation Zaid filed the suit in May 2025, arguing the memorandum constitutes improper political retaliation that would chill his ability to represent clients in sensitive national‑security matters [1][2]. He emphasized his 35‑year career defending government officials, law‑enforcement officers, military personnel, and whistleblowers, and invoked constitutional protections against government retaliation for speech. The court’s opinion cites the Constitution’s ban on punitive use of official power, reinforcing that even the executive’s exclusive clearance authority must obey due‑process limits [2].
Supreme Court Blocks Chicago National Guard Deployment On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s request to deploy National Guard troops to the Chicago area for its immigration crackdown, finding the government had not identified a proper legal authority [2]. The majority opinion stressed the need for clear statutory or constitutional grounding before federal forces can be used in a Democratic‑led city, while three justices dissented. This decision adds a second judicial setback to the administration’s aggressive policy agenda.
Sources
-
1.
AP: Judge blocks Trump's plan to revoke Mark Zaid's security clearance – Details the preliminary injunction, its effective date, and the broader context of the March memorandum targeting Zaid and 14 officials .
-
2.
Newsweek: Trump faces two legal setbacks in 24 hours: injunction blocks security-clearance revocation and Chicago deployment blocked by Supreme Court – Combines coverage of the Zaid injunction with the Supreme Court’s denial of the Chicago Guard deployment, highlighting constitutional and procedural concerns .
Timeline
Mar 2025 – The White House issues a presidential memorandum that designates Mark Zaid and 14 other officials, including Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and New York Attorney General Letitia James, as “no longer in the national interest” to retain security clearances, a move the administration frames as protecting classified information [1].
May 2025 – Representing himself and his clients, Zaid files a federal lawsuit challenging the memorandum as unlawful political retaliation that threatens his ability to represent whistleblowers and other national‑security clients [1][2].
Dec 24, 2025 – U.S. District Judge Amir Ali grants a preliminary injunction that blocks enforcement of the March memorandum against Zaid, preserving his clearance through Jan 13, 2026, and simultaneously the Supreme Court denies the administration’s request to deploy National Guard troops to the Chicago area for its immigration crackdown, citing a lack of proper authority [1][2].
Dec 30, 2025 – The court orders the administration to file a status report by this date outlining its next steps, signaling that the government must decide whether to appeal the injunction or pursue a different clearance‑revocation process [1].
Jan 13, 2026 – The injunction’s stay expires, at which point the court will reassess Zaid’s clearance status and any further remedial actions, while the administration retains the option to seek a higher‑court appeal [1].
Future (post‑Jan 13, 2026) – Zaid tells The Guardian that he sued “to ensure due process and the rule of law,” emphasizing that he is caught in a “political, vindictive battle” and hopes the case will restore his clearance and hold the administration accountable [1].