#jennerblock — Public Fediverse posts

Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.

#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.

#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review.

Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.

#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.

#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review.

Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.

#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.

#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review.

Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.

#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.

#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review.

Now the #LawFirms that went 4-0 defeating the #ExecutiveOrders in the District Courts have filed their appellate briefs on 2026/03/27.

#WilmerHale:
• The Executive Order is unconstitutional and ultra vires from stem to stern, from retaliatory motive to (lack of) methodology or support in statute.
• The Article III judges rule what constitutes wrongful filings, not the President. Also, many of those filings won. Is Trump tired of (us) winning?
• Not only is the blanket security revocation an impermissible act but it was reversed at law firms that capitulated and therefore obviously done for improper, extortionate, purpose. Previously, the Government said that these were blanket revocations given to law firms, so it is too late and too far a stretch to claim *now* that they were individualized.
• The preamble can't be severed from the order when it is the organizing principle for the extortion scheme.

#JennerBlock:
• First Amendment forbids retaliation for associating with the President's political enemies.
• Everything that isn't retaliation is a fig leaf of post-hoc pretext (23 words of pretext and 200+ words of Trump's grievances).
• Blanket security clearance revocation with a promise to look for cause in a later review isn't individualized judgment (as required by the 1st, and 5th Amendments) it is just retaliation without facts or permissible method. This decision is improper and subject to court review.

So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."

My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."

See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)

Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump

So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."

My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."

See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)

Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump

So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."

My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."

See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)

Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump

So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."

My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."

See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)

Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump

So, finally about that 97-page brief that kicks off the appeal. It was filed by political appointees and not the career lawyers who would normally work at this level. (The same appointees who seemed fine with dismissal on last Monday.) That might account for the tone which is more "judges bad" and less "judges make mistakes."

My summary: "My Executive Orders always begin with a declaration of my personal animus behind this retaliation because I am governed by that and not the law. The courts are clearly wrong because you are not the boss of me. I can too revoke security clearances for this reason, because I'm pretty sure you told me so. Also, if I sic the DOJ on specific individuals I hate, that's not retaliation, that's just the DOJ doing law things. And it's unfair for the judges to stop me from kicking these bad, bad law firms out of court rooms and signed contracts because I didn't do that yet — just a written, signed order to do so. And if it helps to rule in my favor, you can ignore the part where I confessed this is all retaliation for political reasons and my hurt feelings."

See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70694462/perkins-coie-llp-v-doj/ (2026-03-06)

Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest. #snark #ExecutiveOrder #LawFirms #PerkinsCoie #JennerBlock #WilmerHale #WilmerCutler #SusmanGodfrey #Trump