Much has been reported about the potential legality of President Donald Trump’s decision to ban CNN, MSNOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico from the White House press pool for their repeated abuse of their position to lie about the President, and ultimately the country.
It’s no secret that President Donald Trump has faced unprecedented and unmatched media scrutiny since he first announced his candidacy for President back in 2015. The media has attempted, since they day he has entered politics, to viciously malign the President with false scandals, big lies, and fake news.
Instead of simply allowing outlets such as CNN, MSNOW, and Politico to spew their lies unchallenged, President Donald Trump has taken action. Trump issued an announcement from his Truth Social feed last week that the three outlets mentioned previously would no longer have access to the White House press pool, citing their negative and distorted coverage.
The backlash from the Democrat-Media complex has been swift and unanimous, as it was announced today that even Fox News has removed their team from the White House press pool in solidarity with CNN, Politico, and MSNOW in protest of the President’s decision.
ABC, CBS, and NBC have also announced that they will no longer be participating in the White House press pool in protest.
CNN falsely characterized the ban as an attack on free speech. Emily Kuhn, CNN spokeswoman said on September 18th in a statement, “We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right.”
Politico issued a similar statement, writing, “We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them.”
MSNOW echoed the sentiment of the previous two, writing, “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”
These outlets didn’t just save their words for statements, either. The three organizations, this morning, filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s Administration over the ban, citing free speech concerns.
A joint statement recognizing the lawsuit issued this morning reads, “This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes. Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”
Ted Boutrous, the attorney representing the three outlets, who also happens to be the same lawyer who represented CNN in the 2018 Jim Acosta case, said today about the lawsuit, ““The President’s ban of CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from the White House is a direct assault on the First Amendment and a blatant violation of due process. The President has been explicit that this ban is intended to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to intimidate journalists and news organizations covering him and his administration.”
The outlets are making it clear. They believe that President Donald Trump’s actions against them are a direct violation of their free speech rights. Luckily, we have had 250 years of judicial precedent on issues such as these throughout American history, and many such cases specifically involving the direct access media organizations are legally obligated to have to politicians have been settled.
A close examination of these cases reveals that President Donald Trump has every right, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, to remove communist, fake news outlets such as CNN from the White House press pool. Here are the decisions and how they impact the lawsuit filed by CNN, MSNOW, and Politico against the White House.
Zemel v. Rusk (1965)
In the early 1960s, Louis Zemel was an American citizen that wanted his passport validated so he could travel to Cuba “to satisfy [his] curiosity” and become a better-informed citizen after the U.S. broke relations with Castro. The State Department refused.
Zemel argued the ban violated his First Amendment right to gather information. The Supreme Court (6-3) upheld the restriction.
Chief Justice Warren wrote the key line in the case, writing, “The right to speak and publish does not carry with it an unrestrained right to gather information.”
The Court added that “the prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen’s opportunities to gather information… but that does not make entry into the White House a First Amendment right.”
The White House is government property. The Court itself used the White House as the example of a place the public, and therefore the press, has no constitutional right to enter.
Denying CNN, Politico, or MS NOW physical access does not, under this holding, automatically violate the First Amendment simply because those outlets want to report from inside the building.
Pell v. Procunier (1974) and companion case Saxbe v. Washington Post
In the early 1970s, California prison rules banned face-to-face interviews with specific inmates chosen by journalists.
Reporters and prisoners sued, claiming a First Amendment right of access.The Court rejected the claim.
Justice Stewart wrote that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally.”
Journalists could still visit prisons, talk to inmates they encountered, and interview people at random, the same access the public had, plus a little extra.
They just could not demand interviews with particular prisoners. A companion case, Saxbe v. Washington Post, applied the same rule to federal prisons.
White House press credentials and briefing-room access have never been available to the general public.
They are a limited privilege the Executive Branch has historically controlled. Pell is the case most often cited for the proposition that the press has no constitutional right to locations or interviews that ordinary citizens cannot get.
This case yet again illustrates, through the precedent that the First Amendment does not provide journalists special access, that the President is well within his legal right to ban these outlets from the White House.
Houchins v. KQED (1978)
In the mid-70s, a local TV station wanted to inspect and film a specific part of a county jail after a suicide, including interviews and cameras. The sheriff offered only the same public tours given to everyone else. The station sued for special media access.The Court (plurality) held there is no First Amendment right of access to government information or facilities under government control.
Chief Justice Burger’s opinion contains the other line your friend quoted: the First Amendment “is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act.”
The press’s protection is the right to communicate information it has obtained, not a right to collect it from the government on demand.
If the public is excluded, the press can be excluded too. Any extra access is a policy choice for the political branches, not a constitutional mandate.
This is the strongest of the three precedents for the administration’s position. The White House grounds, Oval Office, and briefing room are government-controlled spaces.
The Court said the Constitution does not require the government to open those spaces to journalists beyond whatever access it already gives the public, which, in practice, is almost none.
Under no circumstance is the President violating the First Amendment right of any of these organizations, or any Americans by revoking access to the White House for nefarious “news outlets” that simply exist to peddle the narratives desired by the ruling class.
President Donald Trump was elected to end the bureaucratic control of America that saw our jobs leave our shores, our factories shuttered, and our way of life decimated. The news agencies banned by the President have not only tolerated that agenda of degradation instituted by our ruling class, but assisted in furthering it.
The American people deserve honest reporting. Especially about the President of the United States. His move is a brilliant step in the direction of truth, based in absolute law and fact.
Not only honest reporting of the facts and exact quotes, but these reporters and journalists must behave respectfully and civil. Many are very rude and nasty. Horrible behavior. The President has the power to ban them and any person who behaves in an uncivil and crude manner.
Had Trump attempted to shut down CNN and MSxxx, that would be a violation of the First Amendment, but he did no such thing. They are still free to operate. Many other news organizations have no access to the White House, so why are they entitled to such access? This seems like a no-brainer to me, but it is alarming how confused so many are about what Freedom of Speech actually means.