CNN's Jim Acosta has press pass suspended by White House

WSJ article

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cnn-v-...-to-a-press-pass-1542142441?mod=hp_listb_pos2

CNN v. Trump: Is There a Constitutional Right to a Press Pass?
Network has sued Trump administration over Jim Acosta’s press credentials

By
Jacob Gershman
Nov. 13, 2018 3:54 p.m. ET

A federal judge could soon decide whether the Trump administration violated the U.S. Constitution when it stripped away the press credentials of CNN’s chief White House correspondent.

Legal experts say CNN’s lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in Washington, makes plausible First Amendment claims that will be weighed carefully against the White House’s explanation for locking out the journalist, Jim Acosta.

The decision could turn, they say, on how U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly views the White House’s decision on Mr. Acosta. That is, was it as an attempt to squelch Mr. Acosta’s constitutionally protected political beliefs or a move to bring order to the press room?

It is not the first time political journalists have gone to court over a presidential press pass. A similar question confronted a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. more than 40 years ago. That case was brought by a Washington correspondent for the Nation who was denied White House press credentials for vague security reasons.

The appeals court in the 1977 ruling, Sherrill v. Knight, said the public doesn’t have a right of access to the White House and that a president can grant one-on-one interviews to whomever he chooses.

But the court said there were “important First Amendment rights implicated by refusal to grant White House press passes to bona fide Washington journalists” and that at minimum, a journalist shut out of the White House has the right to a lodge a formal protest and get a written explanation for a denial.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh said the White House doesn’t necessarily need to have a powerful reason to keep Mr. Acosta out. More recent First Amendment case law suggests that the president could win by convincing a judge that the decision was merely reasonable, according to Mr. Volokh.

The key for the White House, he said, is showing that it took action against the CNN reporter not based on his reporting or critical views about Mr. Trump but because of his conduct at news conferences.

At a postelection news conference last week, the president scolded Mr. Acosta after he faulted him for calling a migrant caravan in Mexico an “invasion” and pressed him about the wording. After Mr. Acosta refused to let go of a microphone—deflecting a White House intern who tried to grab it away—the president called him a “rude, terrible person” who reports fake news. “[W]hen you report fake news, which CNN does, a lot, you are the enemy of the people,” Mr. Trump said.

In a statement Tuesday, the White House said Mr. Acosta was reprimanded for his behavior.

“The White House cannot run an orderly and fair press conference when a reporter acts this way, which is neither appropriate nor professional,” said White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. “If there is no check on this type of behavior, it impedes the ability of the President, the White House staff, and members of the media to conduct business.”

Lawyers for CNN say the White House isn’t trying to make news conferences run smoothly but “to cast out and punish reporters with whom it disagrees.”

CNN’s lawsuit likely benefits from Mr. Trump’s own words, which he hurled at Mr. Acosta at last week’s hot-tempered news conference, according to Ken Paulson, a First Amendment scholar at Middle Tennessee State University.

Ken White, a free-speech advocate who writes the Popehat legal blog, said CNN’s suit “is very plausible.” What’s less clear, he said, is “what role a court will take into probing the sincerity of the administration’s stated reason.”

Drilling into motives could require a lot of discovery and the production of emails and other evidence. But with CNN filing an emergency motion asking Judge Kelly to immediately restore Mr. Acosta’s credentials while the case is pending, the court doesn’t need to wait for the litigation to unfold. Judges tend to have a lot of leeway in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction like the one CNN is seeking.

Write to Jacob Gershman at jacob.gershman@wsj.com
​

 

If the whitehouse cast out acosta for disagreeing, how do you prove that was the reason and not circumstancial?

 

Wow... not only did they lie about what happened and doctored a video to support their lie...

 

I knew this would rustle some jimmies. LoL

 

This is why your spelling skills are null. Lighten up.

 

Mollie Hemingway article

http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/13/everyone-is-wrong-about-the-jim-acosta-white-house-battle/

 

He didn't need to touch her to still be refusing to yeild the floor. I have seen people kicked out of public meetings for less.

 

Correct, meant to have one L instead of two - Nil as in zero. I will just write that you have zero credibility next time you purposely post something and claim it to be something else entirely.

Lighten up? GFY.

 

He didn't "touch her". Her arm came in contact with his while reaching for the phone. And clearly he said excuse me to her. And I have worked many press conferences and watches hundreds more... "not yielding the floor" isn't uncommon. Reporters will always ask follow up questions, especially if the subject is avoiding direct answers. This didn't start with trump btw... has happened throughout time. But trump invites this to happen...

 

Triggered!

 

Obama would never treat a reporter this way. Obama never lost his cool and threw a temper tantrum on a national stage. So you are talking about something that would never happen.

What's truly surreal is you ignore the imbecile and childish behavior ot the president and focus on the reporter he is mistreating and abusing.

Just goes to show how much of a brainwashes moron you truly are. Oh, I guess I should right moran so you understand.

 

If we were sitting across from each other having this conversation, you would know I am not triggered. When you have no challenge to the matter of your credibility, only coming back with a response about spelling and then whether or not I’m “triggered” as if that is a point for you and somehow dignifies your misrepresentations, I would simply roll my eyes and casually tell you to GFY.

 

They know they are making up stuff so they can attack him. They are fine with lies and propaganda - look at what they believe and they follow Trump as their hero. Think about that for a second. Think about the mental gymnastics and nuttiney that must go on in their head.

 

And now it appears it was an intern, not the similar looking staffer...

 

so this is fake news?

 

The post you referenced was not aimed at being credible. It was a joke about acosta. I figured anyone who watched it would have known it wasnt serious (or acosta). I should've added a laughing emoji.

As far as my credibility, a lot of posters disagree with me but it is always civil. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

Fair enough.

 

Fox News joins CNN...

 

I don't get this lawsuit - Trump can't kick someone out of his house he doesn't like? CNN can't send over someone who isn't obnoxious?