A federal judge ordered the White House on Tuesday to restore The Associated Press’ full access to cover presidential events, affirming on First Amendment grounds that the government cannot punish the news organization for the content of its speech.
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, an appointee of President Donald Trump, ruled that the government can’t retaliate against the AP’s decision not to follow the president’s executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico. The decision handed the AP a major victory at a time the White House has been challenging the press on several levels.
“Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” McFadden wrote. “The Constitution requires no less.”
It was unclear whether the White House would move immediately to put McFadden’s ruling into effect. McFadden held off on implementing his order for a week, giving the government time to respond or appeal.
The AP has been blocked since Feb. 11 from being among the small group of journalists to cover Trump in the Oval Office or aboard Air Force One, with sporadic ability to cover him at events in the East Room.
“We are gratified by the court’s decision,” said AP spokeswoman Lauren Easton. “Today’s ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, one of the administration officials named in the lawsuit, did not immediately return a message seeking comment. In its action filed on Feb. 21, the AP sued Leavitt, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich.
The AP hasn’t “won” shit until they’re actually back on the plane.
“Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” McFadden wrote. “The Constitution requires no less.”
But only for that reason right? Not all reporters are given that access so there are other reasons to deny it.
This should make Fox News happy, because it means that when the Democrats win next time, they can’t be banned from the White House. (Even though they’re entertainment and not news.)
They’ll be allowed back in the White House, but they’ll be put in the “special reporter zone” that is two rooms away from the press briefings with Fox News playing on max volume.
How long do you think the Supreme Court is gonna wait to wipe their ass with constitution again and overturn the ruling? Any bets? I say about 2 weeks.
1 week
They would just hear the case and place a preliminary injunction on the lower court judge’s orders, pending appeal, which mean AP is still banned in the mean time, then they sit on the case for 4 years, then when the next democrat comes in power, they’ll dissmiss it because the case is now moot.
But if a democrat bans fox news, you bet they’ll reverse it within 24 hours.
Until it’s enforced - and I mean with guns and security - this means nothing.
Yeah, we’ll see.
It’s freedom of the press and not freedom to be depressed.
