Associated Press Sues 3 Trump Officials Over Access Ban
The Associated Press has sued three people in President Donald Trump’s administration over the White House banning the wire service from accessing presidential events: Susan Wiles, chief of staff, Taylor Budowich, deputy chief of staff, and Karoline Leavitt, press secretary.
The White House issued the ban when the AP refused to use “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico.”
The AP claims the ban violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment:
The ban violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As the D.C. Circuit has made clear, journalists’ “first amendment interest” in access to the White House “undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.” Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 130-31 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Defendants gave the AP no prior or written notice of, and no formal opportunity to challenge, their arbitrary determination that the AP would indefinitely lose access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other limited areas as a member of the press pool – as well as access to larger locations open to a wider group of journalists and reporters with White House press credentials – unless the AP adopted the Administration’s preferred language in its reporting.The ban also violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The D.C. Circuit has made clear that denying journalists access to White House press events “based upon the content of the journalist’s speech” is “prohibited under the first amendment.” Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 129. Having opened the White House and certain areas to the press, the First Amendment “requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” Ateba v. Jean-Pierre, 706 F. Supp. 3d 63, 75-76 (D.D.C. 2023) (quoting Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 129) (emphasis in original), appeal argued, No. 24-5004 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 15, 2024). Defendants have not provided, nor could they provide, any compelling reason for their arbitrary denial of the AP’s access. Rather, Defendants’ actions are impermissibly based on their dislike of the content of the AP’s expression and what they perceive as the AP’s viewpoint reflected in the content of its expression. The White House ban of the AP also constitutes impermissible retaliation, as it was instituted to punish the AP for its constitutionally protected speech in ways that would chill the speech of a reasonable person of ordinary firmness.
The administration implemented the ban on February 11.
The ban became indefinite on February 14 after the AP continued not to use Gulf of America.
“To date, the AP’s reporters and photographers remain banned from the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other locations open not only to pool members, but also to a larger group of journalists with White House press credentials,” according to the lawsuit.
The AP claimed Wiles told the wire service “that the White House was targeting the AP because its Stylebook ‘is used by many as a standard for writing and editing,’ and that it ‘advises journalists, scholars and classrooms around our country.'”
Wiles added that the administrations remains ‘”hopeful that the name of the [Gulf] will be appropriately reflected in the Stylebook where American audiences are concerned,’ implying that the AP could change its guidance as to American audiences to resolve the issue and restore its access.”
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY