CNN v. Trump – Challenging the President’s Decision To Ban from the White House News Outlets Whose Reporting He Doesn’t Like

Once again, the Trump Administration is attempting to exert unconstitutional control over the content of expression—this time, by banning from the White House news organizations whose reporting has displeased the President. This unconstitutional ban follows previous violations of press freedom by the Administration, including restricting the Associated Press’s access to official events after the outlet refused to adopt the Administration’s preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico, and the government’s crackdown on press access to the Pentagon by those who would not agree to report only official handouts. (We filed amicus briefs in both those cases, also.)

So once again, we (together with the National ACLU) are filing an amicus brief in support of the media’s First Amendment right to report as they see fit without governmental retaliation for news coverage the President doesn’t like. The President’s assertion of the power to banish journalists for disfavored coverage is an alarming part of a broader assault on free expression. The Administration has attempted to muzzle institutions like the bar, the academy, and the media that are at the heart of civil society and has retaliated against speakers of all kinds for espousing views the Administration dislikes. Our Nation’s history and other countries’ modern trajectories demonstrate the importance of upholding First Amendment protections here. When officials are allowed to punish media organizations for their reporting, repression and democratic backsliding often follow.