MFIA Clinic Joins Free Speech Fight Over Security Clearance Revocation
The Media Freedom and Information Access (MFIA) clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of First Amendment scholars in support of national security litigator Mark Zaid’s challenge to the revocation of his security clearance.
In Zaid v. Executive Office of the President, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Zaid asserts that the arbitrary and process-devoid revocation of his security clearance violates the First Amendment, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment right to counsel, the bill of attainder clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The First Amendment scholars’ amicus brief, filed on May 28, explains that the administration’s revocation of Zaid’s security clearance violates fundamental First Amendment protections.
Zaid is a national security litigator who often represents national security whistleblowers facing government investigation, impending denials of their security clearances, and other forms of retaliation. Zaid previously represented the whistleblower who revealed details of President Trump’s call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy that led to the first Trump impeachment. Zaid requires a security clearance to take on these representations. A few days after Zaid filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of FBI employees alleging they were being targeted because of their work on the Jan. 6 insurrection cases, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced that she would revoke Zaid’s security clearance pursuant to a presidential directive. On March 22, 2025, the president issued a memorandum formally directing agencies to rescind Zaid’s and others’ clearances. As with other executive orders rescinding security clearances for lawyers at various law firms, the presidential memorandum did not invoke national security as the basis for the revocation and instead cites the “national interests.”
The scholars’ brief calls on the court to grant Zaid’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block what it describes as a retaliatory and unconstitutional action. The brief contends that Zaid’s clearance was stripped not for legitimate national security reasons, but as part of a broader campaign to punish attorneys who advocate for clients and causes the administration disfavors.
The summary revocation of Zaid’s clearance bypassed the individualized, expert review that typically governs such decisions. According to the filing, no national security justification was offered for the action, and the process lacked the safeguards needed to protect against arbitrary or viewpoint-discriminatory decisions.
“The freedom to seek legal counsel, to provide legal counsel, and to petition the government through litigation without fear of governmental retribution is foundational to our system of civil rights and the rule of law,” the brief states. The government violates the First Amendment when it seeks to suppress or punish lawyers for views they express in support of clients, the scholars say.
Citing recent Supreme Court precedent, including National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the brief also explains that the government cannot indirectly punish protected speech and legal advocacy by threatening to revoke security clearances. Such actions, the brief contends, amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and informal censorship.
The brief warns of broader consequences, noting that the revocation sends a coercive message to other attorneys: representing clients or causes the administration opposes could result in the loss of their security clearances, chilling lawful advocacy, and whistleblowing in the national security arena.
“The revocation of Mark Zaid’s security clearance is part of an alarming trend of attacks by the executive branch on lawyers who represent causes or clients disfavored by the government,” explained Clinical Lecturer in Law Tobin Raju, the Craig Newmark Fellow at the MFIA clinic. “These attacks seek to censor both lawful whistleblowing activity and legal advocacy on behalf of those who blow the whistle. The First Amendment prohibits such censorship.”
The clinic drafted the amicus brief in collaboration with Professor Heidi Kitrosser of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Several prominent First Amendment scholars joined the brief as signatories. The court’s decision on Zaid’s motion for a preliminary injunction is pending.
Yale Law School alum Eli Scher-Zagier ’25 worked on the brief.
The Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School is a law student clinic dedicated to increasing government transparency, defending the essential work of news gatherers, and protecting freedom of expression through impact litigation, direct legal services, and policy work.
