An attorney from a nonprofit defending the First Amendment is skeptical about President Donald Trump’s chances in the legal dispute with three media outlets barred from the White House. Despite the lawsuit announced over Trump’s ban of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, the White House has confirmed its firm stance.
I think the Trump administration will not fare well in court because its action here is blatantly unconstitutional,
said Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), based in Philadelphia. Trump announced on TRUTH Social the ban on Friday, accusing these outlets of reporting FAKE NEWS and stating they shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES.
Reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico were seen relocating their equipment and continuing their broadcasts from Pennsylvania Avenue instead of their designated spots within the White House.
In response to Terr’s evaluation, the White House remains resolute regarding the ban. On Monday, the media outlets filed a lawsuit against Trump seeking a temporary injunction to reverse the ban and restore their White House credentials immediately.
Other press pool networks, including Fox News Media, ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News, declined to replace CNN’s position in the White House television pool coverage. They stressed the importance of the public’s access to unbiased information about governmental actions:
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.
White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) President Jacqui Heinrich from Fox News expressed the organization’s support in a statement:
Today’s action revoking access for journalists from CNN, POLITICO, and MSNOW violates the First Amendment. 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.
Terr emphasized that while reporters do not have an inherent First Amendment right for White House access, legal precedent insists that once access is granted, it cannot be withdrawn for ideological reasons: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.
Terr underscored the danger of bias in media, contrasting it with the potential negative consequences of media under government control:
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 and their coverage of the government and other issues in our society.
Peter D’Abrosca, politics reporter at Fox News Digital, contributed to the report.