Three news outlets have beefed up their legal complaint against the White House over access, saying it is continuing to defy a judge’s orders by refusing to let them return to covering President Donald Trump in the Oval Office and on Air Force One — thus violating their free speech rights by continuing to keep them out of the rotating press “pool.”
CNN, MS NOW and Politico said Wednesday that the president is retaliating against them for reports he does not like, which violates U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly’s previous orders for the administration to allow reporters for the outlets to fully return to the pool of journalists covering the president.
Even after those orders, the White House was continuing to block reporters for those outlets from covering Trump in “the very locations that the president most frequently engages with the press,” Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., the outlets’ attorney, said in a statement.
The most recent filing asks the court to make those previous orders permanent.
At issue is whether the president, or anyone, can punish news outlets for the content of their reports. The news organizations say that doing so is “viewpoint discrimination” forbidden by the First Amendment’s free-speech protections.
Trump insists that he doesn’t have to let news outlets whose reports he dislikes onto White House grounds, on Air Force One or other areas. The White House had not responded to the amended lawsuit as of Thursday morning.
“Every news organization now faces the risk of similar punishment for coverage the President deems insufficiently favorable,” the outlets wrote in their filing, “and the public is deprived of current and complete information about its government.”
The filing comes about two weeks after Kelly ruled that CNN, MS NOW and Politico are likely to succeed in the extraordinary case pitting the president against the news outlets that cover him.
In a victory for the journalists, Kelly expanded a previous, temporary ruling that the administration had violated the news outlets’ Fifth Amendment right to due process. On Oct. 13, Kelly also sided with a second argument by the outlets: that Trump’s ban breached their First Amendment right to free speech.
Kelly rejected Trump’s reasoning that the ban was driven by policy goals, such as protecting national security. He argued the ban was the result of Trump’s stated belief that the outlets’ reporting was inaccurate and biased.
“Simply put,” Kelly wrote in the opinion, “That is unlawful viewpoint discrimination” — the government taking action against types of speech or coverage it does not like.
Three major news outlets—CNN, MS NOW, and Politico—have intensified their legal complaint against the White House regarding access to President Donald Trump, alleging that the administration continues to defy a judge’s orders by preventing them from covering events in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One. The outlets claim this exclusion constitutes a violation of their free speech rights, as they are being kept out of the rotating press « pool » that allows journalists to report on presidential activities.
The complaint centers around allegations that Trump is retaliating against these media organizations for publishing reports he disapproves of, which raises significant constitutional questions regarding freedom of the press. The attorneys representing the outlets have emphasized that the White House’s actions violate U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly’s prior rulings, which mandated that reporters from these organizations should be allowed to fully participate in covering the president.
Despite these judicial orders, the White House has reportedly continued to block reporters from accessing the president in key areas where he frequently engages with the media. The latest legal filing requests the court to make the judge’s previous orders permanent, asserting that the president—or anyone in a position of power—should not be able to punish news outlets for their reporting, as this constitutes « viewpoint discrimination » prohibited by the First Amendment.
Trump has contended that he is under no obligation to allow access to news outlets whose reporting he finds unfavorable, suggesting that he can restrict their presence on White House grounds and Air Force One. As of Thursday morning, the White House had not responded to the amended lawsuit.
The filing by CNN, MS NOW, and Politico highlights a broader concern within journalism: that any news organization could face similar punitive measures for coverage deemed insufficiently favorable by the president. This scenario not only threatens the outlets involved but also deprives the public of timely and comprehensive information about their government.
This legal development follows a ruling by Judge Kelly about two weeks prior, which indicated that the three news organizations were likely to succeed in their unusual legal battle against the president. In a significant win for the journalists, Kelly expanded a previous temporary ruling, noting that the administration had violated their Fifth Amendment right to due process. On October 13, he also acknowledged the outlets’ argument that Trump’s restrictions infringed upon their First Amendment rights.
Judge Kelly rejected the administration’s defense, which claimed the restrictions were justified by policy goals, such as national security. He pointed out that the actions taken against these news outlets stemmed from Trump’s expressed belief that their reporting was inaccurate or biased. In his opinion, Kelly stated, « Simply put, that is unlawful viewpoint discrimination, » indicating that the government should not take punitive actions against certain types of speech or media coverage it disapproves of.
In summary, the ongoing legal dispute between CNN, MS NOW, and Politico against the White House raises critical questions about press freedom, governmental accountability, and the rights of journalists to report without fear of retaliation. The case underscores the importance of safeguarding First Amendment rights in the face of political pressures and the need for a transparent relationship between the media and government officials.
