Law firms fear Trump orders could affect security clearances of lawyers who are military reservists

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump says his executive orders targeting law firms are being issued in the name of national security, with the White House asserting that the firms don't deserve access to sensitive U.S. government information.

But the firms fear the orders are being written so broadly as to potentially weaken national security by calling into question the status of security clearances of lawyers who, in addition to their legal practice, serve as military reservists and require their clearances to report to duty.

It's an example of the sweeping and sometimes unintended consequences of White House efforts to reshape civil society, with those affected in some instances not necessarily being the ones who were top of mind when the Trump administration announced the actions in the first place. Military veterans, for instance, have not been spared from Trump's ongoing slashing of the federal government.

Trump's law firm executive orders have generally targeted firms that have associations with prosecutors who previously investigated him or employ, or have employed, attorneys he perceives as political adversaries. The orders have consistently imposed the same consequences, including threatening the suspension of all active security clearances held by employees at the singled-out firms.

Security clearances are issued for government workers and contractors who require access to classified national security information as part of their job. The federal government has broad discretion over who does and who does not obtain a clearance.

It's unclear how many lawyers at the four firms who remain subject to executive orders — several others have averted them through settlements with the White House — hold security clearances either through their jobs or other work, or whether the Trump administration would move forward with plans to revoke the clearances of military reservists.

A White House spokesman, asked for comment, pointed to the provision of the order that says the clearances are to be suspended “pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.” The response seemed to suggest that clearances of reservists could potentially be spared.

In the meantime, though, the issue was raised during a court hearing Friday in which a lawyer representing WilmerHale, one of the targeted firms, noted that the firm has within its ranks military reservists who have security clearances. Another firm that's been subject to an executive order, Perkins Coie, also has said that it employs military reservists.

“I don’t think for a minute the government lawyer is going to come up here and tell you that they actually intended to suspend the reservists’ security clearances," Paul Clement, a prominent Washington appellate lawyer who is representing WilmerHale, told the judge. “But they’re painting with such a broad brush with this thing, they aren’t distinguishing sheep from goats at all.”

He said Friday that “two of those lawyers have to report for their reserve duty next week. Now, I can’t tell you for sure that they’re going to show up and they’re not going to be able to do their job because their security clearance has been suspended.”

A person familiar with the matter, who insisted on anonymity to describe non-public information, said about a half-dozen WilmerHale employees are reservists.

Several firms, including WilmerHale and Perkins Coie, have succeeded in winning court orders temporarily blocking enforcement of certain sections of the executive orders. The security clearance provisions, though, have remained in effect, a reflection of a president's expansive powers when ordering the suspension or revocation of clearances.

Dan Meyer, a lawyer who specializes in security clearances at the Tully Rinckey law firm — which is not among those targeted by the executive orders — said that he assumed the number of attorneys at major law firms is small and that it was possible military reservists might be able to keep their clearances, but it could conceivably require a lengthy adjudication.

“It may be that word will go quietly from the White House, ‘Don’t screw with any of these reservists at these law firms,’” Meyer said.

But, he added, “If the cat wants to claw the mouse, there’s an opportunity to do it.”

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Monday, March 31, 2025. (Pool via AP)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to use an 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants, but said they must get a court hearing before they are taken from the United States.

In a bitterly divided decision, the court said the administration must give Venezuelans who it claims are gang members “reasonable time” to go to court.

But the conservative majority said the legal challenges must take place in Texas, instead of a Washington courtroom.

The court’s action appears to bar the administration from immediately resuming the flights that last month carried hundreds of migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The flights came soon after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II to justify the deportations under a presidential proclamation calling the Tren de Aragua gang an invading force.

The majority said nothing about those flights, which took off without providing the hearing the justices now say is necessary.

In dissent, the three liberal justices said the administration has sought to avoid judicial review in this case and the court “now rewards the government for its behavior.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined portions of the dissent.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it would be harder for people to challenge deportations individually, wherever they are being held, and noted that the administration has also said in another case before the court that it’s unable to return people who have been deported to the El Salvador prison by mistake.

“We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this,” she wrote.

The justices acted on the administration’s emergency appeal after the federal appeals court in Washington left in place an order temporarily prohibiting deportations of the migrants accused of being gang members under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act.

“For all the rhetoric of the dissents,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion, the high court order confirms “that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal."

The case has become a flashpoint amid escalating tension between the White House and the federal courts. It's the second time in less than a week that a majority of conservative justices has handed Trump at least a partial victory in an emergency appeal after lower courts had blocked parts of his agenda.

Several other cases are pending, including over Trump's plan to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally.

Trump praised the court for its action Monday.

"The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself. A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social site.

The original order blocking the deportations to El Salvador was issued by U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, the chief judge at the federal courthouse in Washington.

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelan noncitizens who were being held in Texas, hours after the proclamation was made public and as immigration authorities were shepherding hundreds of migrants to waiting airplanes.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said the “critical point" of the high court’s ruling was that people must be allowed due process to challenge their removal. "That is an important victory,” he said.

Boasberg imposed a temporary halt on deportations and also ordered planeloads of Venezuelan immigrants to return to the U.S. That did not happen. The judge held a hearing last week over whether the government defied his order to turn the planes around. The administration has invoked a “ state secrets privilege ” and refused to give Boasberg any additional information about the deportations.

Trump and his allies have called for impeaching Boasberg. In a rare statement, Chief Justice John Roberts said “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

Venezuelan migrants deported from the United States peer through windows of an Eastern Airlines plane upon arriving at Simon Bolivar International Airport in Maiquetia, Venezuela, Sunday, March 30, 2025. (AP Photo/Cristian Hernandez)