The Trump White House media ban on CNN, MS Now and Politico has prompted an immediate legal challenge, with a leading First Amendment advocate saying the administration is unlikely to prevail in court.
After President Donald Trump announced Friday that employees from the three outlets would be barred from White House grounds for what he called “reporting FAKE NEWS,” the administration said it would not reverse course despite the lawsuit.
Trump White House media ban faces constitutional scrutiny
Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the action is “blatantly unconstitutional,” arguing that once the White House grants press access, it cannot revoke it based on viewpoint or critical coverage. Terr noted there is longstanding precedent that the First Amendment applies when the White House opens its doors to the press.
Following the announcement, crews from the affected outlets shifted to Pennsylvania Avenue, continuing live shots from across the street instead of their customary positions on the grounds.
The administration pushed back on Terr’s assessment and defended the decision to bar the outlets.
Lawsuit seeks immediate restoration of press credentials
On Monday morning, CNN, MS Now and Politico filed suit seeking an injunction to pause the ban and an order restoring their White House credentials without delay.
CNN had been slated to handle White House television pool duties that day. The other pool networks, Fox News Media, ABC News, CBS News and NBC News, jointly declined to replace CNN, saying the public has a vital interest in accurate, independent information and that no administration should restrict a news organization because of objections to its reporting.
White House Correspondents’ Association President Jacqui Heinrich expressed support for the barred outlets, saying the revocations violate the First Amendment and warning that the standard used to exclude one organization could be applied to others in the future. She urged the administration to restore access immediately.
Advocates cite precedent on viewpoint discrimination
Terr emphasized that while no one has an automatic right to report from the White House, courts have found that once access is provided, it cannot be withdrawn for ideological reasons. He said the government cannot condition access on agreement with its viewpoint or retaliate against protected speech by revoking access to a space open to the press.
He added that while media bias can exist, government control over coverage would be far worse. The First Amendment, he said, is designed to prevent government control over information, ensuring reporters can cover news as they see fit and allowing the public to decide whether to trust their reporting.
For additional context on the administration’s broader approach to the press, see White House media ban targets CNN, MS NOW and Politico.
One Response