WASHINGTON (AP) — A lawyer for three news organizations told a federal judge Thursday that the Trump administration must be stopped from barring their journalists from the White House, saying the ban is a classic example of “viewpoint discrimination” that punishes people for what they say — and violates the media’s First Amendment rights.
The hearing was the latest development in the growing conflict between the Trump administration and the media, which has raged in various arenas during his second term as president. At its core, however, are multiple issues related to freedom of expression. The dispute has resulted in sanctions and restrictions on White House and Pentagon journalists and has resulted in several lawsuits that are progressing through the federal court system.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said he intends to rule by Tuesday, possibly sooner, on whether to extend his earlier order restoring access to the White House for journalists from MS NOW, CNN and Politico. Granting the media’s request for a preliminary injunction would preserve the status quo – access – until the dispute is resolved.
Kelly, appointed to the bench by Republican President Donald Trump, did not specify how he intended to govern, but described the government’s main arguments as an “uphill climb” and a “difficult path.” The judge also challenged a government lawyer to spell out the national security concerns the administration says are at stake.
“We have always been clear that this is not just about national security,” Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik said, arguing that false information can impact policy and harm national security.
“Negative news articles don’t bother him if he deserves them. He has problems with peddling verifiable lies,” Velchik said of Trump.
Theodore J. Boutrous, a lawyer for the media plaintiffs, said the government continues to discriminate against viewpoints and publish information it does not like.
“He doesn’t like people scrutinizing his policies, he doesn’t like reporting, he wants more good press,” Boutrous said in court. This is a content-based restriction on speech and a clear violation of the First Amendment, he said.
Velchik said some of the problems the White House has had with reporting from banned news organizations include “quotes that aren’t actually said,” the use of anonymous sources and the bundling of interviews to insert questions different from those that were actually asked of the interviewee. “I think we have identified specific allegations for each individual media outlet,” he said.
The hearing was made available to the media and public via a public access number, but the audio was often so quiet as to be unintelligible.
The three-week saga continues
The case has been ongoing since last month, shortly after Trump barred media outlets from the White House, saying he objected to their reporting.
News organizations want longer-term relief until the entire matter is resolved, and a temporary restraining order was set to expire Thursday. But the judge extended it until Tuesday and said he intended to rule by then on whether to issue the preliminary injunction.
The hearing before Kelly came nearly three weeks after CNN, MS NOW and Politico were abruptly banned from the White House, with the president denouncing their “fake news.” A CNN spokesperson said the network was cleared to perform its pooling duties on Tuesday and is next expected to do so on Sunday.
Although journalists were allowed back on Kelly’s orders, the administration continued to selectively exclude CNN from its role in the White House broadcast pool. A CNN spokesperson said the network was cleared to perform its pooling duties on Tuesday and is next expected to do so on Sunday.
Kelly had granted a two-week temporary restraining order against the ban, but it expires Thursday. The points of sale have asked the court to suspend the ban until the case is resolved, saying the administration has “persisted in implementing its ban in an unpredictable and inconsistent manner” despite the ban order – including selectively blocking CNN from attending the White House pool homework.
“The White House’s words and actions leave little doubt that it will immediately reinstate a comprehensive ban on CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO if given the opportunity,” lawyers for the networks wrote in a Sept. 28 filing.
The question is whether the president, or anyone else, can punish the media for the content of their reporting. News organizations say this constitutes “viewpoint discrimination” prohibited by the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
Trump insists he doesn’t have to let media outlets whose reporting he doesn’t like onto the White House grounds. “When it comes to the White House, it’s the people’s house,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said recently on ABC, invoking an argument the administration has made all along. “It’s a privilege, not a right, to be here.”
News organizations say this approach violates constitutional amendments protecting free speech and due process.
___
Noveck reported from New York and Boone from Boise, Idaho. Laurie Kellman in London contributed.
Gn usa
