Just as the Department of Justice appeared ready to cease defending President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at penalizing Democratic “lawfare” and the associated law firms, the Trump administration made a sudden about-face. Now, one legal firm is appealing to a higher court to argue that Trump enacted unconstitutional sanctions for “welcoming” the late special counsel Robert Mueller back into their fold following the conclusion of the Russia investigation.

In a detailed 40-page brief submitted on Friday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, WilmerHale acknowledged Mueller’s passing on March 20 at age 81. While they did not reference Trump’s controversial social media comment—where he stated, “Good, I’m glad he’s dead”—the document argued that Executive Order 14250, titled “Addressing Risk of WilmerHale,” was clearly not about national security.

When the DOJ moved to withdraw its appeal against significant losses in early March, attention swiftly shifted to the nine law firms that had controversially settled with the government, offering nearly a billion dollars in pro bono legal services to maintain their security clearances and contracts.

Among these firms was Paul Weiss, which had connections to Mueller and was singled out in Trump’s executive order.

WilmerHale emphasized that the supposed national security threats cited by Trump seemed to evaporate once Paul Weiss “aligned its policies more closely with the President’s preferences.”

The brief stated, “The President entirely nullified the previous order, without maintaining any suspension of security clearances or sanctions, which could potentially be justified on national security grounds.” It concluded that this demonstrated these orders were being issued and rescinded as part of a coordinated strategy.

What the case is actually about, the brief went on, is Trump’s “draconian punishments” against WilmerHale to plainly “retaliate” against the firm for its former association with Mueller and for its First Amendment-protected viewpoint about the ex-special counsel, FBI director, and Marine.

The firm said the president “openly” stated that the firm’s “‘partisan’ and ‘political’ views, including [the] decision to ‘welcom[e]’ Robert Mueller back to the firm following his work as Special Counsel,” were behind the executive order.

For instance, the order cites Mueller and other former members of his Special Counsel’s Office with WilmerHale ties by name, slamming them for their involvement in “one of the most partisan investigations in American history.”

“[W]hile the President may disagree with Mueller’s decision to accept the invitation (by President Trump’s own Justice Department) to serve as Special Counsel, or with the viewpoints expressed in his report, or with WilmerHale’s decision to welcome him back after his service, the President may not penalize the firm based on its association with Mueller and his (real or perceived) viewpoints,” the filing said.

WilmerHale urged the D.C. Circuit to affirm that Trump’s executive order is “riddled with constitutional defects and that a district judge was “amply justified” in totally blocking the “egregious First Amendment violations”.

“This is First Amendment 101,” the brief concluded.

In a statement on Mueller’s death, the firm said its former partner’s “life was exceptionally well spent,” referring to his military service in Vietnam, FBI directorship during and after 9/11, and the Russia investigation.

“Bob was known more recently to the country as Special Counsel and the namesake for the Mueller Report, which described Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and former President Trump’s actions towards the investigation of Russia’s conduct,” the firm said.

With the DOJ’s “unexplained about-face” keeping the appeal alive, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey each separately filed briefs the same day seeking another victory.