Tonight in Your Rights: 'Regular forces'

SCOTUS stopped Trump's plan to send troops to Chicago, and a lawyer who helped impeach him won back his security clearance.

Chicago protesters in front of Trump International Hotel (Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / AFP)

A quick holiday message:

It seems fitting that the Christmas Eve newsletter of All Rise News features two examples of the potent power of legal pushback in an age of cynicism, distrust and despair.

• A Supreme Court that’s been exceptionally accommodating to Trump 2.0’s agenda delivered a message that, for now, vindicates the Chicago protesters who spelled out the words: “NO TROOPS IN OUR STREETS.”

• A national security lawyer whose efforts contributed to Trump’s first impeachment sued for the return of a tool of his livelihood — and won.

‘Such circumstances are exceptional’

The Supreme Court rejected the Justice Department’s application to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Chicago.

By a 6-3 margin, a strong majority of the justices supported their decision with reasoning that throws a wrench in Trump’s attempts to deploy National Guard forces into blue states over the objections of the governors.

Under Section 12406, Trump can only federalize the National Guard in the event of an invasion, rebellion or inability “with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” Most of the litigation in Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago has revolved around the third prong of the statute, but none of those cases provided an agreed-upon definition of “regular forces.”

The Supreme Court just defined the phrase as meaning the military, a definition first proposed to the justices in an amicus brief by former Obama administration attorney Marty Lederman.

“Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from ‘execut[ing] the laws’ ‘except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,” the majority order notes. “So before the President can federalize the Guard under §12406(3), he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be ‘unable’ with those forces to perform that function.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The video below, which first aired on Oct. 31, 2025, accurately noted that the Supreme Court appeared to be seriously considering this outcome. Nearly two months later, the recording still holds up to scrutiny.

Read the Supreme Court’s order in full here.

‘Fixed star in our constitutional constellation’

Mark Zaid (Photo by Nikki Kahn/The Washington Post via Getty)

Donald Trump cannot revoke the security clearance of the attorney who represented the whistleblower behind his first impeachment, a federal judge ruled.

“The Constitution forbids government officials from using their power to retaliate against people for their speech, and that is so even when the speech is critical of the government,” U.S. District Judge Amir Ali wrote in a 39-page opinion on Tuesday.

“Eighty years ago, the Supreme Court captured that foundational promise in this way: ‘If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,’” Ali added.

Prominent national security lawyer Mark Zaid was one of the attorneys singled out by Trump for retaliation in an executive order titled “Rescinding Security Clearances and Access to Classified Information from Specified Individuals.”

In 2019, Zaid represented the member of the intelligence community who filed a complaint about Trump’s pressure campaign against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, setting off a sequence of events resulting in Trump’s impeachment.

Trump tried to discredit Zaid as a “sleazeball” and a “disgrace,” ultimately seeking revenge during his second term by issuing an order to revoke his security clearance.

Zaid celebrated his vindication in a statement.

“This is not just a victory for me, it’s an indictment of the Trump administration’s attempts to intimidate and silence the legal community, especially lawyers who represent people who dare to question or hold this government accountable,” Zaid said. “I will not be intimidated and look forward to continuing to defend the brave men and women who stand up to the unlawful retaliation of the Trump administration.”

Zaid’s all-star legal team includes several attorneys who were either targeted by Trump themselves or have defended against retaliatory prosecutions. His lead attorney Abbe Lowell also represents New York Attorney General Letitia James. Attorney Norm Eisen, a co-founder of The Contrarian and founder of the Democracy Defenders Fund, was targeted by Trump in the same executive order. Professor Eugene Fidell teaches military law at Yale University.

Judge Ali paused his order for 21 days to allow Trump’s Justice Department the opportunity to pursue an appeal. Presidents have wide latitude over security clearances, but other judges have found that power isn’t absolute, blocking Trump’s orders revoking security clearances for members of certain targeted law firms.

“It is equally well established that the executive branch’s exclusive power to determine who satisfies the eligibility criteria for security clearance does not mean it can conduct that determination however it wants and free from the Constitution’s limits,” Ali wrote.

Read the 39-page ruling in full here.

Lastly, a note of gratitude

These are quintessential All Rise News stories: clear-eyed and not fatalistic about Trump’s attacks on the rule of law.

The first year of Trump’s second term has validated that approach. The political prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James have collapsed in spectacular fashion. Major law firms, media companies and academic institutions have learned that those who fight back against vindictive attacks can prevail, and those that capitulate lose credibility in the public eye. Judges who sought to hold the government accountable have been bullied, threatened, and intimidated, but remain unbowed.

With your support, this newsletter will continue to provide journalism of focus, passion, substance and engagement. Courts tend to slow down over the holidays, and so the next week’s dispatches may be relatively light. But make no mistake: All Rise News is just getting started.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all who celebrate!