White House Defiant as CNN, MSNOW and Politico Sue Over Press Ban
Three news outlets sued President Donald Trump on Monday seeking an injunction to restore their White House credentials after he banned them from the grounds, while a First Amendment attorney predicted the administration will lose in court and the White House insisted it will not back down.
Three major news organizations sued President Donald Trump on Monday, seeking an injunction to halt his ban on their reporters from the White House grounds and to immediately restore their press credentials. The lawsuit followed Trump's Friday announcement on TRUTH Social that employees of CNN, MSNOW and Politico would be barred from the grounds over what he called «reporting FAKE NEWS.»
The White House responded defiantly, telling Fox News Digital that Trump is not backing down. The dispute has quickly become a test of how far the administration can go in restricting access to the president's workplace based on coverage it dislikes, and it has drawn in the rest of the White House press corps.
Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, predicted the administration will lose. «I think the Trump administration will not fare well in court because its action here is blatantly unconstitutional,» Terr said. He pointed to what he described as settled precedent: once the White House opens its doors to the press, the First Amendment applies to that access.
«There's settled precedent that when the White House opens its doors to the press, which it has done, the First Amendment walks in too,» Terr said. «So that means the administration can't ban reporters from the White House grounds just because it doesn't like their point of view or thinks their coverage is too negative or critical.» He added that Trump's own statements made clear that the outlets' coverage was the reason for the ban.
Terr acknowledged that no one has an absolute First Amendment right to report from the White House. But he said courts have established that once a media outlet gains access, that access cannot be revoked for ideological reasons. «The principle here is that once the government provides access, it then can't condition that access on whether you're expressing a viewpoint that the government agrees with,» he said, describing the ban as retaliation against protected speech.
Reporters and cameramen from the three outlets removed their equipment from the White House over the weekend and set up on Pennsylvania Avenue, continuing to film live segments from across the street rather than from their usual positions on the grounds. CNN was scheduled for White House television pool coverage on Monday.
The other press pool networks — Fox News Media, ABC News, CBS News and NBC News — announced in a joint statement that they would not take CNN's place. «The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting,» the pool members said.
White House Correspondents' Association President Jacqui Heinrich of Fox News also released a statement supporting the outlets. «Today's action revoking access for journalists from CNN, POLITICO, and MSNOW violates the First Amendment,» she wrote. «The implications extend beyond these organizations: a standard used to exclude one news outlet because of its coverage could be applied to any outlet in the future.»
Heinrich said the public must be able to scrutinize elected officials through a free and independent press, «regardless of whether government officials view it favorably,» and called on the administration to immediately restore the journalists' access.
Terr noted that while media bias can exist, government control over the flow of information would be worse. «The First Amendment is designed to prevent exactly that type of government control over the flow of information in a free society,» he said. «The First Amendment guarantees that reporters are free to cover the news in a way that they think is best, and it's up to the American public to hear what they have to say and decide whether or not to trust them.»
The case now moves to the courts, where the three outlets are asking for an injunction that would temporarily halt the ban and immediately restore their credentials. The outcome could set a precedent for how future administrations handle press access, and it has already prompted the broader White House press corps to close ranks behind the banned outlets.
5
