Previously, I wrote:

> Regarding the security clearance revocation, we have only the #DOJ brief, but it reads a bit more seriously than the rest.

But that's because the #Trump DOJ is hammering on the language of Department of Navy v. Egan (1988) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/518/ and Lee v. Garland (2024) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/20-5221/20-5221-2024-10-29.html with all the bluster of a con artist or chat bot in a self-reinforcement loop. But both those cases were predicated on the presumption of regularity — that the appropriate agency, following procedure, undertook a careful determination and the review of which is a nonjusticiable political question. Trump's four #ExecutiveOrders make it clear that none of that happened and all of this is retaliation for not capitulating. And NRA v. Vullo (2024) https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-842 seems to say that is coercion in violation of the First Amendment.

So #MikeMasnick argues https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/09/doj-un-drops-its-appeal-against-law-firms-files-brief-that-gets-the-first-amendment-exactly-backwards/

> The brief actually cites NRA v. Vullo, .... The Supreme Court held —unanimously — that government officials using their regulatory authority to punish or suppress disfavored private speech can violate the First Amendment, even if the official frames their actions in terms of legitimate regulatory interests.

...

> Vullo actually undercuts their entire argument. The point of the Vullo framework is that when government speech is coupled with government action designed to punish disfavored private expression, the combination can be unconstitutional coercion. The administration [tries the ruse of] ”Section 1 is just government speech.” That’s precisely the move Vullo says you can’t get away with.

So maybe that security clearance revocation is just as much Jello as Trump's Florida lawsuit against the BBC.