White House press ban set to continue for now after hearing ends without ruling
Por Sara Fischer — Axios
A judge on Wednesday appeared skeptical of Trump administration arguments justifying the White House barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico, but he did not immediately grant the news outlets’ request for a temporary restraining order.
Why it matters: In declining to rule right now, the White House has no legal mandate to remove the ban. That means the broader press boycott will likely drag on, leaving the American public without key visual coverage of the White House.
- Outlets that weren’t banned stood in solidarity with their peers, vowing to suspend video and photo distribution until their peers’ access was restored.
Zoom in In a statement, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, said the president’s sudden move to strip reporter credentials appeared to violate legal precedents that require journalists to be given notice, per Politico.
- He said he planned to issue a ruling on the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief soon.
Catch up quick: The banned outlets sought a temporary restraining order to restore access while the case is litigated through a lawsuit filed on Monday.
- A ruling in their favor would mark a huge win and indicate the judge believes their case would likely hold up in court.
- In their complaint, the outlets argued the White House violated their First Amendment rights, by blocking them in retaliation for their reporting and discriminating against their viewpoints, and their Fifth Amendment rights for banning them without due process.
The other side: In a court filing Tuesday, the Justice Department argued press access is a privilege, not a Constitutional right, and that it revoked the plaintiffs’ press passes for national security reasons.
Zoom out: The news industry has broadly supported the banned outlets. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, along with 50 news outlets — including Axios — filed a court brief in support of the plaintiffs.
Flashback: Kelly oversaw a CNN lawsuit against the White House over blocked access in 2018.
- In that case, he granted CNN a temporary restraining order that required the White House restore then-correspondent Jim Acosta’s press badge, ruling that pulling his credentials without notice or an appeal process violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
- While the outcome of that case isn’t binding, it does hold weight in informing Kelly’s decision-making. CNN, MS NOW and Politico referenced that case in their lawsuit.
Zoom out: Press freedom lawyers argue the plaintiffs have a strong First Amendment case, given a binding legal precedent set by a higher court.
- In 1977, a federal appeals court ruled that the White House could not revoke a journalist’s press credentials based on their coverage or viewpoint.
- In that case, journalist Robert Sherrill sued the White House for being denied a press pass with no explanation.
- That court ruled that once the White House opens up a space as a public forum and lets journalists in, it cannot selectively remove access for select journalists based on their viewpoint or coverage under the First Amendment.
What’s next: Trump had previously indicated that he intended to appeal the injunction ruling, if not in his favor.
Note: The author of this article is a paid contributor for CNN.
Fonte: Axios
