Obiter loves a good US legal drama. But such is the character of our times, that we don’t need to wait for a film starring Tom Cruise for a fillip. And so to the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, which is hearing an appeal by the US government in Jenner v Department of Justice. Readers may recall that four US firms refused to roll over (or is it play dead?) when faced with president Donald Trump’s executive orders against them.

The four - Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey – each went to court, where the executive orders were struck down as unconstitutional. Their cases were then grouped for the purposes of the government’s appeal, and oral arguments opened on 14 May.

The hearing is in front of a panel of three judges, and the four firms have every reason to feel pretty perky about the outcome.

When judge Cornelia Pillard was nominated by president Obama in 2013, she faced fierce resistance from conservative legislators to her confirmation – derided as ‘one of the most liberal nominees to the federal bench in decades’. It took a rule change to avoid a filibuster blocking her appointment.

The court’s chief judge, Sri Srinivasan was appointed by Obama in 2010. Fewer conservative pyrotechnics attended his appointment, not least as he had been a government lawyer under Bush.

Which leaves the third panel judge, Neomi Rao. Some Gazette readers may know Rao from time spent at Clifford Chance’s London office. Rao was a Trump appointee, but from the president’s (more, erm, regular) first term. Her record includes a period of clerking for controversial conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas.

While Pillard plus Srinivasan have a ‘majority’, having Rao onside too would be ideal for the law firms, so her demeanour and questions are being closely watched. According to one observer: ‘Her questions signalled broad discomfort with the government’s position.’

The outcome is awaited.

Topics