4/8/2025

12 Responses to “Federal Judge Rules Against Trump and Ban on AP”

1. Hello.

   Dana (465466) — 4/8/2025 @ 2:52 pm

   
   

2. Given recent trends i’m pretty sure the Supreme Court will disagree.

   aphrael (dbf41f) — 4/8/2025 @ 3:03 pm

   
   

3. I know, but really, how could they possibly when we all know better?

   Dana (f0c734) — 4/8/2025 @ 4:08 pm

   
   

4. I still hold out some hope that the Supreme Court will stand up to Trump’s caudillo dictates.

   norcal (cdf133) — 4/8/2025 @ 4:31 pm

   
   

5. I expect Trump will appeal this no-brainer decision up to the Supreme Court, because that’s who Trump is.

   Paul Montagu (51dd04) — 4/8/2025 @ 4:45 pm

   
   

6. Every president does this from time to time. And even if they attend, that does not mean they participate. I expect that the next time President Obama calls on the Fox reporter will be the first.

   Kevin M (a9545f) — 4/8/2025 @ 10:35 pm

   
   

7. The Court merely declares that the AP’s exclusion has been contrary to the First Amendment

   I see nothing in 1A that guarantees a particular news organization access. That is a really slippery slope; how much access does it guarantee? How many times does Hannity do an interview with Trump before AP has a right to same?

   Kevin M (a9545f) — 4/8/2025 @ 10:38 pm

   
   

8. It is, of course, stupid, just as the Gulf of America is a stupid troll.

   Kevin M (a9545f) — 4/8/2025 @ 10:39 pm

   
   

9. @7

   I see nothing in 1A that guarantees a particular news organization access.

   Exactly.

   lloyd (767440) — 4/9/2025 @ 5:59 am

   
   

10. So what? Sue, anyway!

    nk (e9faf8) — 4/9/2025 @ 6:10 am

    
    

11. From the link: “The AP’s chief White House correspondent, Zeke Miller”

    Zeke Miller is the hack who breathlessly reported that Trump tossed the MLK bust out of the Oval Office on day one of his first term. (It was still there.)

    The AP obviously values something in Miller, though it can’t be his credulity.

    lloyd (767440) — 4/9/2025 @ 6:12 am

    
    

12. I see nothing in 1A that guarantees a particular news organization access.

    Interestingly, the judge is Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee. From the memorandum order:

    ……….
    (T)he Court simply holds that 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. The Constitution requires no less.
    ………..
    ………A nonpublic forum is “government property that is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication”—such as “museums and offices.” Limited-access press conferences in government facilities can also fit the bill. Ditto for the U.S. Capitol buildings.

    In nonpublic fora, restrictions on First Amendment activities are “examined only for reasonableness.” So the Government may discriminate “based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.” Safe to say, the Government has extensive control over access to nonpublic fora. But even in nonpublic fora, it must wield that control in a way that is viewpoint neutral and not a subterfuge “to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” Viewpoint discrimination is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which occurs when the government “targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject.” ……..
    ………..
    ………..(T)he Government has chosen to open the Oval Office to reporters in limited circumstances. That is, it has opened government property for “selective access” to a “particular class of speakers” whose members must “obtain permission” to be there in the first place. ……….

    This means official authority to restrict expression in the Oval Office is at its zenith. But still, there is a limit: Access restrictions must be reasonable and not viewpoint based. So while the AP does not have a constitutional right to enter the Oval Office, it does have a right to not be excluded because of its viewpoint. And the AP says that is exactly what is happening.

    The Court agrees. Indeed, the Government has been brazen about this. Several highranking officials have repeatedly said that they are restricting the AP’s access precisely because of the organization’s viewpoint. Government counsel admitted that the AP was not being chosen for access, despite its “eligibility,” because of its viewpoint. (“I think the record is clear. . . . [T]hey are not being selected for Oval Office access because they refuse to adhere to what the President believes is the law of the United States . . . that the body of water is called the Gulf of America.”). The Government offers no other plausible explanation for its treatment of the AP. The Constitution forbids viewpoint discrimination, even in a nonpublic forum like the Oval Office.

    That the Government recently took control of press pool composition and now exercises sole discretion over who enters the Oval Office only bolsters this conclusion. The Government is still “reserv[ing] eligibility for participation” in Oval Office media events to certain “classes of speakers” and, indeed, the Government is explicitly the one that is “ma[king] individual, nonministerial judgments as to which of the eligible [outlets] would participate.”
    …………
    …………(E)ven restrictions on noncommunicative activity are subject to reasonableness review, and thus pre-speech acts are also immune from viewpoint discrimination. ……….
    ………..
    To be sure, the Government seemingly views these Oval Office events as akin to dialogues, not observational newsgathering. And perhaps there is something to that comparison. After all, intimate events in places like the Oval Office might be framed as more closely resembling sit-down, one-on-one interviews—which are clearly “dialogue”—than broader press briefings. And the AP concedes that the Government may engage in viewpoint discrimination in selecting what reporters can interview senior officials. But the Government neither called witnesses nor presented any evidence to support this analogy.
    ………..
    Whether the press pool travels on Air Force One, goes to a Mar-a-Lago press briefing, or attends a press-pool-only event elsewhere, the Government has chosen to open the doors of nonpublic spaces for some journalists. The Government thus cannot exclude the AP from access based on its viewpoint. ……..
    ………..
    ………..The AP alleges that its exclusion from press pool, East Room, and limited-access events is in retaliation for its speech. It is well-established that the Government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests—especially, his interest in freedom of speech.” Even when the Government can withhold a benefit, “[a]n ordinarily permissible exercise of discretion may become a constitutional deprivation if performed in retaliation for the exercise of a First Amendment right.”
    ……….
    The analysis is straightforward. The AP made an editorial decision to continue using “Gulf of Mexico” in its Stylebook. The Government responded publicly with displeasure and explicitly announced it was curtailing the AP’s access to the Oval Office, press pool events, and East Room activities. If there is a benign explanation for the Government’s decision, it has not been presented here. At the evidentiary hearing, the Government conceded that the record reveals viewpoint-discriminatory motives, so all indicators point to retaliation.
    ……….

    Citations to court cases and case filings removed.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 4/9/2025 @ 2:14 pm