CNN‚ MS NOW and Politico are seeking protection from a U․S․ federal court in Washington‚ D․C․ to continue access to the White House following President Donald Trump’s ban on all three media outlets’ access to the White House last month․ The lawsuit will be heard again by the court on Oct. 8.
| Jon Elswick, AP News |
President Trump prohibited members of these news organizations from entering the White House on Sept 18‚ citing fabrication of news stories․ Trump said the news organizations reported “fake news” and should not be allowed to keep reporting what he called fiction and lies․
News reporters were barred from entering the White House the following day‚ and their White House credentials were deactivated or confiscated‚ the Associated Press reported․
“Freedom of the press as protected within the First Amendment to the U․S․ Constitution is one of the bedrock principles of American democracy‚” said Professor Gary Rose, scholar-in-residence of the School of Political Science and Global Affairs․ Rose also authored over one dozen books, and is an expert in American politics and constitutional law.
According to Rose‚ press access helps ensure that information about government activities reaches the public and restricts opportunities for public officials to act without oversight․
These groups sued in U․S․ District Court for the District of Columbia on Sept. 21․ CNN‚ MS NOW and Politico claim that the ban was an act of retaliation for their coverage and viewpoint discrimination against their news organizations․ They also claim that their reporters did not receive procedural protections before their press credentials were revoked․
However‚ the Trump administration disputes these allegations․ Lawyers for the Justice Department said in court documents filed on behalf of the administration that these organizations released sensitive or possibly classified information that could affect national security․ Limiting their access to the White House would remove one avenue through which they could obtain such information․
The controversy has also prompted a response from journalists․ Groups such as AP‚ Bloomberg‚ The New York Times‚ Reuters‚ The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post have signed a statement expressing concern about government retaliation against media groups‚ as noted by the Committee to Protect Journalists․
The cooperation reflects the collaboration of press pools that provide several news organizations with access to the White House when space is limited․ Removal of a news organization from a White House pool can reduce video footage‚ photos and firsthand observations available to other news organizations․
Professor Steven Michels‚ in the School of Political Science and Global Affairs‚ noted that this conflict has implications for others outside the organizations involved․
“Citizens need to be informed about what their government is doing in their name‚” Michels said․ “Limiting access only to compliant media outlets will not help with that․”
Michels highlighted the importance of having broader access‚ given that public trust in government and media institutions is currently strained․
“Having multiple outlets means a diversity of opinions and perspectives and a fuller accounting of what is happening‚” said Michels․
The current case raises issues related to White House press passes that have been litigated in the courts for many years․ In Sherrill v․ Knight‚ 1977‚ the D․C․ Circuit held that denying a White House press pass implicates First Amendment interests and requires notice‚ an opportunity to respond‚ and a written explanation when access is denied․
Rose said the Sherrill case may be relevant to the current case․
“Legal experts suggest that the Sherrill case will serve as precedent for a future ruling‚” said Rose․
The case may test older due-process rules and newer questions about access to limited presidential spaces․ A hearing on the preliminary injunction is set for Oct. 8 at 11 a.m. in Washington‚ D․C․‚ the same day that the temporary restraining order expires․
Prof․ Rose expects courts to rule more clearly as the case progresses․ The three news outlets now have hard passes․ The court is currently deciding whether the news outlets will retain these hard passes for the remainder of the lawsuit․
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
