Federal Judge Rules Trump White House Must Return Jim Acosta's Press Pass

The case, which pits Trump against the network he loves to criticize, has raised First Amendment concerns.



A federal judge ruled today that the White House must return CNN reporter Jim Acosta's press pass, at least for the time being.

Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia says the White House does not have to allow reporters onto the White House grounds. However, he notes First Amendment issues can arise if the administration allows some reporters on the grounds but not others, according to Buzzfeed News reporter Pat McLeod. Kelly also says Acosta was not provided due process when the White House decided to revoke his pass.

Ultimately, Kelly says CNN successfully proved it will suffer irreparable harm as a result of the administration taking away Acosta's pass. "I will order defendants immediately restore Mr. Acosta's hard pass," Kelly says.

Kelly's ruling came a little more than a week after a contentious exchange between Trump and Acosta. At Trump's post-midterms press conference, Acosta pressed the president on his characterization of the migrant caravan as an "invasion." Trump responded: "I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN," adding: "And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better."

Acosta attempted to ask another question, but Trump wouldn't answer. When a White House intern tried to take the mic away from Acosta, he continued to hold onto it. Later, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused Acosta of "placing his hands" on the intern, which he clearly didn't do. The White House then revoked Acosta's press pass, prompting an uproar from the media.

On Tuesday, CNN filed a lawsuit against Trump and some of his top aides, in an effort to make the White House give Acosta his pass back. The network received the support of multiple other news organizations, including Fox News, in the form of amicus briefs filed with the court.

CNN argues that taking away Acosta's pass violated his and the network's First and Fifth Amendment rights (freedom of the press and due process, respectively). Of particular issue is whether his pass was taken away because of his rude behavior or due to the content of his reporting.

In a statement on Tuesday, Sanders seemed to change the White House's justification. Though she originally cited Acosta's alleged physical behavior toward the intern, she now said he tried to "monopolize the floor" rather than "yield to other reporters."

That argument may have been on Judge Kelly's mind when he asked CNN's attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., why the White House would decide to take action against Acosta now. After all, the president has fueded with Acosta and CNN for a long time. "What triggered a content-based response here as opposed to all those other months?" Kelly asked, according to ABC News.

"This was a bad day for the president," Boutrous responded. "It was the day after the midterms." Boutrous also said that Acosta's alleged rudeness isn't the issue here. "Rudeness really is a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter,'" he said, adding that it's actually Trump who "is the most aggressive, dare I say rude, person in the room, and I'm not being critical—this is the rough and tumble of the presidency, and that's what the First Amendment protects."

Justice Department lawyer James Burnham argued the White House has ultimate control over who attends its press conferences. CNN reports:

Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's press pass if it didn't agree with their reporting. "As a matter of law…yes," he said.

That argument is somewhat troubling. The White House may be where Trump lives, but it's not his property. As Reason's Robby Soave argued last week, the administration should not be in the business of banishing reporters for being critical, even if those reporters are also rude or tend to hog the mic.

Kelly's ruling is only temporary. CNN had asked for "permanent relief" as well as "emergency relief," but today's decision only applies to the latter request. "I want to emphasize the very limited nature of today's ruling," Kelly says. Acosta has his pass back for now, but this saga is far from over.

NEXT: Betsy DeVos Formally Unveils New Title IX Rules: 3 Ways They Will Strengthen Due Process on Campus

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. However, he notes First Amendment issues can arise if the administration allows some reporters on the grounds, but not others…

    Right now there is a caravan of Daily Shopper reporters on its way to the gates of the White House.

    1. Nice!

      I can imagine a queue of “reporters” outside the gate every morning.

      1. And CNN reporting from/on the queue.

    2. That was my first thought as well, gonna be funny watching 400,000 reporters trying to cram into the press room, but then I realized that the judge is saying it’s the “inviting some but not others” itself that raises the First Amendment issue. Having given a small group of people a license to ask questions, you can’t revoke the license because you didn’t like the question they asked.

      But we all know CNN isn’t fighting as a matter of principle, they’re fighting because they’re dicks and Acosta is a dick and they like shaking their dick at Trump so they can broadcast a news story of “hey, look at us shaking our dick at Trump”. If they were actually interested in reporting news out of the White House, they’d send a real reporter to ask real questions and report real information.

      Trump called the migrant caravan an invasion and Acosta didn’t ask him to explain why he characterizes it as an invasion, a question designed to elicit information, he simply demanded that Trump apologize for calling it an invasion because it’s not an invasion and that’s not even a question.

      1. Trump violated the Constitution.

        Disaffected yahoos cheer him on nonetheless.

        1. What part of the Constitution did he violate?

          1. Ask someone with a law degree, or perhaps a GED, to try to explain this for you.

            Or read the judge’s decision. Or CNN’s motion and accompanying memorandum of law. Or CBS’ “friend of the court” brief. Or Fox News’ “friend of the court” brief. Or any other “friend of the court” brief.

            1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|11.16.18 @ 11:22AM|#
              “Ask someone with a law degree, or perhaps a GED, to try to explain this for you.”

              So you’re not qualified to answer.

              1. Why perform basic research for the uninformed when they can find the answer readily and develop a useful skill while doing it?

                1. Arty, it isn’t our job to research your argument for you. I’m guessing you don’t have one.

            2. Article eight, section one: If Hillary is not elected, the election was bogus, and need not be accepted.
              Article eight, section two: Anything Trump does is unconstitutional.

            3. The judge didn’t rule on the merits yet.. this was for the injunction while the case is convened. Do you have a GED Arthur?

              1. A judge considering a motion for temporary restraining order (or preliminary injunction) considers likelihood of success on the merits. This judge described his reasoning, in attenuated manner. Have you read that decision, JesseAz? Are you familiar with the relevant points of civil procedure?

                1. Have you? I mean, you’re just a high school dropout.

                2. Arthur, youre aware you didnt contradict my statement, right? Do you have a GED? You made the claim it was unconstitutional, ie the merits had been ruled upon. That’s not what happened as you admit. So who is the idiot here? Hint… You.

            4. “I have no argument, but I really really hate Americans”

          2. Stop picking on RAK. He doesn’t know, so he can’t explain it, and now you’ve embarrassed him before his class.

            1. He has no class.

        2. Trump violated the Constitution.

          He really didn’t. Acosta is free to say and write whatever he wants and he is not being held/jailed without trial and conviction. This whole thing is a farce and that judge should not be a judge.

      2. Having given a small group of people a license to ask questions, you can’t revoke the license because you didn’t like the question they asked.

        One suspects that you can revoke the license for no reason whatsoever. Otherwise: “Why TF did you not give *me* a license in the first place?!”

        1. Access to public relations of the White House isn’t legally required. Being invited is a privilege not a legal requirement. There is no requirement for due process to revoke a privilege. Under this theory of required due process I could sue trump, or Obama, for arbitrarily granting interviews to only favored media outlets.

          1. Good luck with vindicating our legal insights in court.

            1. Don’t ever group me with you again dumbfuck, even if mery because of a typo.

        2. What about the other CNN reporters that still have access? There were reports that said CNN has 40 other passes for other reporters.

    3. You do understand that they only let in 1 reporter from each news agency don’t you?

  2. Haha. The judiciary is so full of corrupt douches.

    Jim Acosta has zero legal right to enter the special parts of the White House that average Americans cannot go.

    Trump should ignore these corrupt judges. This type of corruption only works if people accept what corrupt bureaucrats say. All these Lefty tricks are such a waste of taxpayer money.

    Trump should appeal this decision to the SCOTUS too.

    1. I would laugh if the intern files charges for battery against Acosta and the White House then pulls Acosta’s press pass for that too.

      1. I guess we aren’t “believing the women” anymore?

        1. Its different when there is video showing the battery and the man is a Lefty propagandist.

      2. I would laugh if the intern files charges for battery against Acosta and the White House then pulls Acosta’s press pass for that too.

        That is because you are a half-educated, anti-social loser. The intern initiated the contact with Acosta. Ask someone with a law degree, or perhaps a GED, to try to explain this to you.

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|11.16.18 @ 11:09AM|#
          “Ask someone with a law degree, or perhaps a GED, to try to explain this to you.”

          IOWs, ask someone other than you.

        2. “That is because you are a half-educated, anti-social loser”

          Says the guy on a website insulting people because rhey are asking him a question he can’t answer because his education is insufficient.

          1. I wouldn’t bet against a high school student at a strong school knowing the answer to this one without conducting research.

            I would expect most journalists’ reports of the decision to provide the answer, too.

            Do you genuinely fail to apprehend the “part of the Constitution” violated in this context, Mr. Vickers?

            1. No part of the constitution was violated. You’re just too stupid and deluded to understand that.

        3. Rev. is an NPC’s NPC.

      3. Unconsented touching = rape. End of story, end of career. (except for socialists)

      4. Don’t forget Acosta was attempting to retain possession of the microphone after the owner’s representative attempted to retrieve it. That’s usually theft.

        So assault in the commission of a theft…

    2. Except for the fact that Kelly is a Trump appointee, so that punches a big hole in your argument.

      1. See, you think it matters who got these corrupt judges on the bench? No president can completely vet every one of these federal judges to a “T”.

        The point is that once they get appoint FOR LIFE, they often change into part of the problem.

        Kelly received his Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, from Duke University, and his Juris Doctor from Georgetown Law, where he was a senior associate editor of the American Criminal Law Review. Kelly spent a decade as a federal prosecutor, serving first as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia and then as a trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division. Kelly also spent several years as a civil litigator at Arnold & Porter. He clerked for Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He also served as the Republican staff director for the Senate’s Caucus on International Narcotics Control.-Wikipedia

        He sounds like a drug warrior asshole to me.

        1. He may well be a drug warrior asshole, something for which I have no patience. And yes, I agree that no president can vet every one of these federal judges to a “T.” However, his Republican credentials make it more than likely that if he were corrupt, he would be corrupt in favor of Republicans, including the very one that appointed him.

          1. Justice Stevens was appointed by a republican… Nobody of intelligence would call him a republican.

            1. Stevens is a statist, they come in all varieties, but yes, I wouldn’t call him a Republican.

              Past that, there are multiple differences between the two, including that Kelly had Republican credentials from previous work, where Stevens did not.

      2. I unlike YOU, base my opinions on the actions of a person, not who nominated them or which party they are in.

        1. Seriously, stop casting aspersions. You cannot possibly know what my opinions are, other than in this case. I also note that Kelly acted in favor of Trump in English V Trump. It is incongruent to believe that he is corrupt because he ruled against Trump, when he has already ruled in favor of Trump in another case.

      3. Judge Kelly ruled based on a precedent he lacks the authority to overturn. In an era where judges in Hawaii make law for the whole country based on how they feel about political questions, this may seem unusual. But it’s perfectly in keeping with being a responsible judge.

    3. You might find it interesting that the “corrupt douche” who issued this ruling is a Federalist Society member who was appointed by … President Trump.

      1. Then the Federalist Society should seriously consider his membership.

        These media personalities aren’t fucking priests, secretly divining truth behind the curtain of the temple. Every single American is a member of the press. And yet, we don’t all have a right to be in the Press Room of the White House.

        1. Watching disaffected, uninformed right-wing malcontents flail against society’s norms, mainstream, and progress — and find sustenance from each other as they rant inconsequentially from the rejected fringe — is strangely entertaining.

          1. I’m not disaffected, uninformed, or right-wing.

            The first amendment applies to ALL people, not just the cloistered few in the media. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand that, bigot.

            1. He cuts and pastes that. Arty didn’t write anything original.

    4. Judicial authoritarians
      They need to be removed

    5. It’s all or nothing. He didn’t do anything wrong. I agree that trump can shut down new briefings entirely, but they can’t just shut out non dick suckers and leave all the trump dick suckers (fox, post, etc)

  3. Judge Timothy J. Kelly … notes First Amendment issues can arise if the administration allows some reporters on the grounds, but not others

    *** looks around ***

    There are a *lot* of reporters here that haven’t been allowed on the grounds!

    Kelly also says Acosta was not provided due process when the White House decided to revoke his hard pass.

    “Due process” may be the next casualty of Newspeak.

  4. How did they get this in front of a judge so fast?

    1. We cannot get our election from almost two weeks ago finalized but this guy can get in front of a judge in a few days.

      No corruption to see here.

      1. The media is part of the permanent ruling class

        Different rules for the rulers
        Like a vested right to stroll about the White House and disrupt news conferences

    2. How did they get this in front of a judge so fast?

      Routine civil procedure. CNN’s lawyers seem to understand the legal system.

    3. It’s a temporary ruling asking for an injunction, not a ruling on merits.

  5. Kelly also says Acosta was not provided due process when the White House decided to revoke his hard pass.

    Kelly also says Acosta was not provided due process when his wife decided to revoke his hard pass.

  6. So next step, Trump doesn’t call on Acosta. Can Acosta sue? If Acosta keeps yelling out questions without being called on, can Trump shush him or have him removed, or is that a lawsuit as well?

    1. Or how about Trump replies to Acosta with “I’m not going to dignify that with a response.”?

      1. Or just says, that’s a good question, and calls on the next reporter.

        1. The ol Bill Belichik defense

    2. My only problem with this is it starts to carve journalists out as a protected class, if Acosta/cnn has a right to a press pass every person in the united states is also entitled to one, I seriously doubt the judge would rule that way though.

      1. Don’t be silly. The protected media class would include only those with or on a video camera. For ordinary people to qualify, they would have to have a camera with them at all times, like some kind of pocket device. How likely is that?

      2. “starts”

        Antifa has been sending people to the hospital for years. But shout outside Tucker’s house, and the media bands together in outrage.

        The media is all about the media.

        1. People need to tart sending Antifa to the morgue.

    3. I fully expect Trump to never call on CNN or Acosta again.

      In fact, if I were media I would not even stand near Acosta as the interns probably have orders to avoid Acosta’s entire area so he cannot attack another intern.

      1. Except the opposite is going to happen.

        1. I tend to agree. Actually both Trump and Sanders should:
          1) give Acosta the first question
          2) let him ask as many follow-ups as he wants
          3a) if he stops, ask if he’s finished, then ask if it’s okay to call on another reporter
          3b) if he don’t stop after 20 minutes, look at watch, plead another commitment and leave
          4) Watch the rest of the press corps fume until someone says something but other reporters getting a turn

      2. It will be funny when Acosta is never called on again.

    4. I’d say end open mic conferences until the court decision gets tossed in the rubbish bin where it belongs. Judges do not run the white house, and the only guarantee of access is to run for office, win, and take the oath: everybody else is a guest. Give statements/make addresses, and tweet over Acosta’s head. It won’t take much, mental midget that he is… I hope he has an aneurysm.

      1. This is the correct response. Revoke all media hard passes end all press conferences.

        There is no right to access despite the idiocy of the judge. I want a reporter to apply for access to the judges quarters based on this interpretation.

      2. Like it for this case.

        But in the future, just have multiple wireless mics, and cut off the bozos who won’t shut up. Don’t arm wrestle them for it, just switch the receiver to another mic.

        I wish all news would do this, particularly with remote guests. When they blather on, shut off the sound.

    5. Apparently, all a progtard has to do is whine and cry. Then they get their way even if it has no basis in law if they go to court.

      If we’re going to abamfpdom the rule of law, let’s all acknowledge that, and then deal with them once and for all.

  7. Later, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused Acosta of “placing his hands” on the intern, which he clearly didn’t do.

    Believe women.

    1. Yeah, do they think we’re blind ?

  8. Simple solution: No general press briefings by the President. Spokesmen never call on the twatwaffle.

    1. Or Teumo can just release written statements and ask for written questions. Never ever answering any from CNN.

  9. The next step if I was in charge is to send out 350 million press passes and cite an inability to even have the press conferences as the press pool is too large to accommodate.

    1. What? The football stadium burned down?
      Of course the secret service would not be able to secure that venue, so Trump would not give the briefings, maybe the third assistant secretary of the Treasury?

  10. So, this ruling means everyone in America can go to these press events correct? Or does the press really have super secret 1st amendment rights?

    1. This is right up there with judges ruling that Trump can’t ban people from his twitter. Seriously, this is absurd.

      1. Someone brought up impeaching judges and this and the twitter judge as clear erasons why they should be impeached.

    2. That’s my question with this ruling.

    3. The language of the 1st Amendment about “the Press” was written for Acosta.

    4. Yes, it means every one of us has a constitutional right to a “hard” press pass. Because it is very well established that professional journalists have no rights under the 1st amendment that are not shared by every other citizen.

      Mind, this judge isn’t going to go there, that’s exactly the principle he means to overturn.

    5. The easy solution, with technology today, is to hold press events via Twitter, with questions voted on by pole.

      1. The Don answering a bunch of questions proposed by strippers sounds pretty funny to me. The prostitutes asking the questions now are getting pretty boring anyways.

  11. If I were Trump I would just discontinue all press conferences with the press pool. There, fixed it.

    If I wanted to say something, I would call up the reporter of my choice to do an interview.

    Not only would I do this, the I would hold one last press conference that took no questions to announce my new policy.

    1. Exactly. The Lefties are so blind to the reality that they dont seem to see that they will not win against Trump.

      He’s a fighter and that is what America elected him to do. Fight Lefties and roll back government.

      1. The liberal-libertarian alliance has been winning for five or six decades. The culture war is over. The right-wingers have lost.

        The spasm that elected Trump, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House is easing. Soon enough, our society’s disaffected, anti-social, backward right-wingers will return to their natural state of watching American progress against their efforts and wishes, and muttering bitterly about it.

        They’ll still have their goofy red hats to fondle, at least.

        1. And yet for some odd reason I have never once heard anybody say “bitchin’ fez, dude!”

          1. No, I’m never gonna do it without the fez on. Oh no.

            1. Rev K is part of the royal scam.

          2. “It’s a fez. I wear a fez now. Fez’s are cool.”


        2. “The liberal-libertarian”

          Why are you grouping statists with people who are pro freedom?

          1. He thinks the Democrats are liberal. That’s funny, isn’t it?

            1. If they were, I’d have much fewer issues with the Democrat party.

        3. Placing Liberals and Libertarians in the same group? Shows a lack of understanding of what a Libertarian believes in.

          I’ll wait for your snarky, arrogant response insulting my post.

          1. Blabbity Blah, Herpty Derpty Doo.

            Carry on, clingers.

            /Rev K

        4. ” liberal-libertarian alliance”


    2. I’m not sure what these press briefings even accomplish. Is there ever any actual news that comes out of them?

      1. “Look at me, I’m Jim Acosta”

    3. At the start of the regular daily press briefing, just have a janitor with dirty coveralls and a plumbers friend walk out and write “Daily Press Briefing” on a white board, then retire to a stool in the corner without acknowledging the assembled peacocks in any way. At the end of the allotted time period, have the same janitor stand up, walk out, and erase the white board, again without acknowledgement for the press. For an added touch, he could be smoking a cheap stogie and blowing smoke into the room the entire time as he ignores their shouted pleas for attention.

      Monitor the ensuing butt hurt from a distance until it grows tiresome.

      Repeat daily for as long as anyone shows up. And have a uniformed member of the secret service at the door prepared to drive stun with his taser any guardians of the First Amendment who lay a hand on the janitor.









    1. White Indian?

      1. White elephant?

    2. Thank you Michael Moore.

    3. Needz moar capz. Maybe add [brackets]. And the odd interrobang.

    4. You left out THE JOOOZE!!!!!

    5. Jello Biafra called. He wants his name, and his schtick back.

    6. The genuinely disaffected use BOLD ITALIC CAPS TO SHOW THEY ARE TRULY PEEVED!!!!!!!111

    7. I can’t read anything past “jello.beyonce”.

      Too many distracting visions.

  13. Look^ Hihn’s back.

    1. Yes, and I see he brought his cow bell with him too.

  14. Democrats will cheer this development…until a Democrat is elected President. Then, of course, it will have to be changed back.

  15. Another douchebag activist judge who is going to be smacked down hard by the Supreme Court. Again.

  16. Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused Acosta of “placing his hands” on the intern, which he clearly didn’t do.

    Actually he clearly did do.

    1. Depends on what the meaning of ‘hands’ is.

      Hand? Clearly.

      Hands? Maybe not.

      But yes, that’s the game being played here.


  17. Toyally absurd position by Reason

    we already know the White House does not have to offer people permission to enter simply because they are officially recognized member of the press

    1. There is no such thing in the United States as an officially recognized press. That’s left to dictatorships like Venezuela.

    2. “Toyally absurd position by Reason”

      The Big Lie, 24/7.

      They have truly arrived as a MSM outlet. I’m sure the cocktails parties are to die for.

  18. This is merely a temporary injunction.

    The proper remedy might be to allow CNN to name a replacement.

    But apparently the presidential press conference is a dying thing, so whatever.…..onferences

    1. That is what I do not get.

      CNN isn’t barred from the grounds. They can name, literally, anybody else. Acosta is just an asshole.

  19. What first amendment concerns? Two things come to mind. First is, Acosta had a habit of hijacking press conferences: shouting over people, hogging the mic, or rambling mindlessly as a form of filibuster. He is free to both report on anything the president does at all times, as well as hold his own press confernces [if he can get more than 5 people to show up]. Second, the “hard pass” issued to media members wishing to gain physical access is a security measure – not a dispensation of the first amendment.
    We are in so much trouble here: if courts are going to run the white house, separation of powers is broken and there is no government anymore. I say “no government” because given the amount of time it takes most courts to act, and the fact they cannot act but for a case being brought before them… if men in black run the executive, the likes of North Korea can invade at will knowing jurisdictional confusion will prevent military orders from being issued with any certitude [if they occur in a timely manner at all]. Interestingly enough, it appears a court approves of theft of government property, even just a lowly microphone for a minutes time after surrender was requested.

  20. The White House me simply cannot or should not be able to revoke a hard pass without some due process or formal procedures to be followed. Otherwise, it’s an arbitrary decision that can be done for any reason. They can just claim the reporter was disruptive and pull his or her access. Who gets to decide that? Sure, they can freeze a reporter or news organization out; that’s been done by countless Administrations; but that’s different than formally punishing a reporter.

    Acosta’s a terrible journalist; he doesn’t report news he tries to make news. He has, as Bob Woodward said too many journalists have today, an “emotional” attachment to Trump and that hatred of Trump affects his reporting. But revoking access in this manner is simply not the path we want government to go.

    1. What due process was there in granting the press pass and denying it to others? I assume there was some kind of background check, but other than that?

      1. Trump thought about it and decided that the pass should be revoked. Sounds like a process to me. And he gave it due thought, so it was due process.
        Same due process the “judge” followed; he thought about it and decided the other way. The difference is Trump was elected, the judge was appointed.

    2. Who Obama gave interviews to was arbitrary… Do we now require random lotteries for interviews? Your entire premise is silly.

    3. It’s a unitary executive. The executive procedure is whatever POTUS says it is.

      Same for Congress. Having established rules and procedures it can be said to be in violation of them, but exactly what those rules and procedures should be is entirely their purview. Nobody else can say otherwise.

    4. Who gets to decide that?

      The elected official holding the press conference. There is no due process issue here. Obnoxious Jim is obnoxious and he got what he had coming. He can still wrote and say what he wants and he is not being jailed or held without trial. What this judge did is put another nail on the coffin of due process and rule of law. It’s the same as when a judge ruled that Trump can’t ban people from his private twitter account. It is an absurd ruling.

    5. It’s an arbitrary decision on who gets the pass in the first place. Probably because it’s up to the person giving the press conference.

  21. “due process” is dead. next to go?

    1. Next up? Anarchy. If the executive branch cannot act on laws crafted by congress and we wait around for judges to decide all, we will have something even more dysfunctional than the politburo. They had five year plans primarily because that’s how long it took to build consensus and deliver action. People starve and die with that much “process”. Judges abhor consensus: they each have their fiefdom which functions only if the executive responds to their edicts, provides for prosecutions, and secures the people whose presence is needed to satisfy habeas corpus. Break the executive, and they will find their white papers might as well be scrawled on the bathroom wall.

      1. sweet. love bold predictions.

        >>>If the executive branch cannot act on laws crafted by congress

        which one did?

  22. Well the president could just un invite all reporters and then only grant interviews as he sees fit sometimes legal decision have consequences. or simpler he could just never respond to Acosta again

    1. Better yet, the President doesn’t show up at the press conference, and invites the rest of the reporters to a “Personal Q&A session”, instead. Accosta takes his hard pass, and ends up standing around in an empty room for a while. (Arranging for some crickets to be present would be a nice touch.)

      Looking forward to the judge ordering the President to attend the press conference.

  23. If revoking a hard pass is a 1st amendment violation, how is the existence of a hard pass not one in the first place? Those that do not have hard passes are excluded , by definition.

    Also, what level of impolite, disruptive behavior does a member of the press have to engage in to get kicked out of press conference with established procedures and protocols so that one reporter cannot engage in a filibuster?

    1. >>>how is the existence of a hard pass not one in the first place?


    2. The ruling is actually a 5th amendment decision.

      1. It’s not a ruling on merits at all. It was a ruling on likelihood of harm and winning a case.

    3. Attempted assassination of the President? I’m not even sure about that.

  24. “Ultimately, Kelly says CNN successfully proved it will suffer irreparable harm as a result of the administration taking away Acosta’s pass.”

    There’s something wrong with that?

    1. Cnn suffering ha makes no sense. They have 50 other reporters with a pass.

  25. So, anyone that wants a press pass has a right to one. There is no real difference from denying a press pass to someone that already has one as opposed to denying a press pass to someone that does not. Possession of a press pass does not give a person any special right to retain it. There are plenty of other reporters who would ask the same questions of Trump.

  26. Apparently there is more due process rights involved in revoking a press pass than murder- droning a US citizen.

    1. Or accusing a Supreme Court nominee.

  27. How many divisions does Judge Kelly have?

  28. Total nonsense.
    Do I have a right to a WH press pass? And person with a notepad and pen?
    There is NO constitutional standard/credential for being a journalist.
    Certainly no standard for what is required for a WH press pass. That’s determined by the WH.
    Maybe have a case if someone booted out cause of race/religion. Otherwise, for better or worse, Trump can do what he wants.

  29. I didn’t see the part of the First Amendment that protects the ego of a hairspray-encrusted TV personality. I guess I didn’t squint hard enough.

    1. Right next to gay weddings and abortion.

  30. What a shit ruling by a partisan judge. The press doesn’t have freedom of access to executive offices. They can’t implant a reporter in the top FBI or DoJ offices. Does the freedom of the press this judge find also Grant access to his office and papers? Trump should double down and revoke all hard passes to all journalists.

  31. I don’t see this as a First Amendment issue at all.

    The guy was disruptive. He might as well have been a protestor trying to disrupt a press conference.

    Jim Acosta was still free to go on TV and say whatever he wants. CNN was still free to put him on TV.

    CNN was still free to send someone else to the president’s press conferences.

    Rights are the right to make choices for yourself, and I don’t see where anyone’s rights were violated.

    1. Well, the rights of everyone who voted for electors pledged to Trump have been violated everyday since the election of 2016 by everyone who has refused to accept the results of that election. But other than that, yeah, no violations here, move along, move along.

    2. The ruling was based on a 1977 decision that rested on fifth amendment rights. Reason’s reporting on this is awful.

      1. The only ruling of,its kind, and a faulty one at that. It should not be relied upon.

        1. But a district court judge doesn’t have the authority to overturn it.

          Balls and strikes and all that.

    3. The TRO was granted on 5th Amendment Due Process rights, not 1st.

      The claim is that Acosta had an interest in the pass (a given – he gets employed in is current position *because* of that pass).
      The judge ruled that the government cannot deny Acosta the pass, given that he has an interest in it, without some sort of due process. If the government’s lawyer could not even state who made the decision, then the judge might have a point.

      Unfortunately, the judge ALSO referred to “freedom of the press” as belonging to the media, which indicates he doesn’t actually understand that phrase at all.

      1. There is no uniform rules for being granted a hard press pass from what I can tell. There for it is an arbitrary lriveledge granted by the executive office, not a legally required allowance that required due process. The judge is wrong here.

        1. Hey, if someone in a robe can tell Trump he MUST read some ‘social media’, ’cause A1, some other idiot can claim he must allow another fool into the room.

      2. You are giving this Judge far too much credit.

        The ‘ruling’ is boilerplate ass-pulled to approximate justification for the desired outcome.

        Nobody has a right to a White House press conference.

      3. Sounds like the judge treats a press pass like a NYC taxi medallion.

      4. There is no right to due process in this case. The judge is wrong. Those passes are granted and revoked solely at the pleasure of the White House. There is no body or mechanism established to adjudicate a revocation. Nor is there a basis upon which to establish one.

    4. Acosta is CNN’s top unprofessional, grandstanding clown. If they had to replace him they might be in danger of actual quality reporting from their White House correspondent.

    5. He asked a question.

      Trunp answered.

      He did not like the answer so he wanted to stand and debate/criticize the answer.

      He refused to yield the microphone so some other reporter might have to ask a question and take an answer.

      If he didn’t like the answer he should have gone to the office and write an op-ed, not editorially opinionate in a press conference with other reporters waiting and wanting to ask questions.

      He was rude and full of himself. He was a microphone hog.

      1. Which is why at the next ten press conferences, Sanders and Trump should only call on him. Once he’s done, they leave.

        People didn’t support Acosta because they like the microphone-hogging jerk. They did so to signal that they were on the side of virtue. Let them pay a price for that.

        See how long it takes for Acosta to notice the knives are out and start begging to yield the floor.

        1. Like it.

          “If Jim has no further questions, that’s it for today.”

          Do it until they get the ruling overturned.

          I remember earlier in his administration, there was a question as to whether the White House would have press conferences at all. It’s not like there is a burning need for these things.

  32. Didn’t Obama ban a Fox reporter?

    This is so fricken stupid. It’s not a 1A issue AT ALL.

    Fuck Acosta and fuck that partisan judge.

    I hope the TWH sticks to its guns. Acosta is just gonna resume his assholery in the name of ‘journalism’. Turning this moron into a martyr is so, so dumb over this.

    1. No, Obama banned Fox as an organization and all reporters from that organization. That’s worse, and bad optics (as is this bit with Acosta) but I still can’t make myself call that a 1A infringement.

      1. No he didn’t.

  33. The First Amendment not only guarantees everyone a right to a White House press pass, it also requires the President to listen while partisan reporters make speeches.

  34. “He made his law. Now let him enforce it.” is the correct response.

    I mean, seriously, where do these judges get off? This is not a 1A or 5A or any A issue.

    1. The Right has to start confronting Leftist judicial authoritarianism.

  35. “CNN’s Acosta stopped being a journalist long ago”

    1. Ruben Navarrette Jr., “CNN’s Acosta stopped being a journalist long ago”, San Francisco Chronicle, 9 Nov 2018.

      Here’s how ya do it (without the extra space around the tag deliniters):

      < a href="biglonghairylink" > author. “title”:, pub, date < /a >

  36. If Trump doesn’t want Acosta there, Acosta won’t be there. Just try getting past the Secret Service Jim.

  37. Such a bad ruling by an activist judge, this is not a 1st Amendment issue. Acosta is, and always was, free to bash the Orange One all he wants. Jimbo has demonstrated time and time again what a little prick he is, making the conferences all about himself, and not yielding the mic to his colleagues. CNN still has the right to send others in his place, but Acosta has no right to a press pass.

  38. “Kelly also says Acosta was not provided due process when the White House decided to revoke his pass.”

    And what, pray tell, are the rights and legal due process associated with White House press passes?

    1. Once they, i.e., the hard passes that don’t require daily approval for access, are given the White House simply cannot pull them for any reason. E.g., they don’t like the criticism by that reporter or organization. There has to be some sort of procedure involved, some rules or regulations to prevent abuse of that power by the government.

      No, not everyone has a right to a hard pass or access to the White House. But once given out they can’t be arbitrarily taken away.

      1. Can you show me where this is “due process of law”, or is this just what you think “freedom of the press” means?

        1. The government arbitrarily punished Acosta (which rules or regulations did they cite? answer: none) by taking away the right to access the White House that they once gave him. In order to do so they have to follow due process procedures that are guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments. Once the WH gave Acosta and others access to the WH they can’t just take away that access for any reason. There has to be some sort of procedure or process.
          Question for you: Do you think the White House can punish reporters they don’t like by taking away for any reason the privileges, i.e., access to the WH, that they originally granted them?

          1. “Question for you: Do you think the White House can punish reporters they don’t like by taking away for any reason the privileges, i.e., access to the WH, that they originally granted them?”

            To access the White House briefing room? Absolutely. Access to a building under the sole administration of the Executive Branch or to interview the President there is at the discretion of the Executive Branch. Period. Moreover, Trump isn’t denying anyone’s First Amendment Rights: he’s not kicking CNN out, or only allowing right-wing news organizations the privilege of asking him questions. He’s kicking out one specific employee of CNN, for being an asshole and committing a battery upon one of Trump’s employees.

            Maybe, if there was a pattern and practice of Trump kicking out everyone from a news organization who asked him tough questions, you could demonstrate a finding that the First Amendment is being chilled by the Executive Branch’s behavior, but in this case? This is hilarious overreach by a federal judge too dumb to be able to distinguish Sherrill from the facts in this case. Which means he’s too dumb to sit in that seat.

            Decisions like this are only adding fuel to the fire of the idea that we don’t need to listen to judges.

          2. “The government arbitrarily punished Acosta (which rules or regulations did they cite? answer: none) by taking away the right to access the White House that they once gave him. In order to do so they have to follow due process procedures that are guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments.”

            No. As there is no basis in law for any of that.

            “Once the WH gave Acosta and others access to the WH they can’t just take away that access for any reason. There has to be some sort of procedure or process.”

            Yes they can. There need be no procedure or process.

            “Question for you: Do you think the White House can punish reporters they don’t like by taking away for any reason the privileges, i.e., access to the WH, that they originally granted them?”

            Yes. At any time. Period.

            1. “Once the WH gave Acosta and others access to the WH they can’t just take away that access for any reason”

              The privileges of the ruling class can never be taken away.

          3. “follow due process procedures that are guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments…”

            And those due process procedures in this case are… what exactly?

            Trial by jury? Criminal charges?

            I’m not sure what “due process” procedures are established here.

            Do you know?

            1. Guys, go read Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124. (D.C. Cir. 1977). Which you can find here.

              In that case, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the US Secret Service had to follow due process in denying a WH press pass to a correspondent from The Nation. They cited some, IMHO, fairly nebulous grounds under the 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment that denying the press pass would unduly burden speech. I don’t think a court would rule the same way today, both because we’re no longer in the 70s and it’s a post-9/11 world.

              A real easy way to distinguish the two situations is that denying this guy in the 70s a pass was the same thing as denying The Nation a pass. The same isn’t true for Acosta. There are other arguments you could make. I think Sherrill is a giant infringement on the Executive Branch’s ability to administer itself and control who they let onto their property, but if you didn’t feel like asking the D.C. Circuit to overturn their own precedent, it’d be easy to distinguish between the two cases. For another one, Sherrill didn’t commit a battery.

              1. Alternately, give Acosta due process: notice and the right to be heard. Notice: your shit’s been cancelled. Right to be heard: Show up at the WH 14 days from now and explain yourself. Bring counsel if you want. After that, then revoke it.

                A due process requirement in this situation was created by the D.C. Circuit out of thin air. At a time when the federal judiciary had a bad habit of doing this sort of thing. It didn’t come down on stone tablets from Sinai.

              2. “In that case, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the US Secret Service had to follow due process in denying a WH press pass to a correspondent from The Nation.”

                I think the important part here is “Secret Sevice.”

                I can see how a president can deny people press passes to his own business and residence, while his secret service agents deciding it on their own would potentially violate someone’s first amendment rights.

  39. Right-wingers here apparently have no clue how anyone gets a White House press pass in the first place. So it’s sort of stupid (well, it would be stupid anyway) to see them trot out ideologically based theories on what the law of press passes is. After all, what good is ideology if you can’t use it as a substitute for knowing facts.

    Get real, folks. Find out what you are talking about before you shoot your mouth off. Here’s a hint, you can Google what you need to know. But you will have to go to about the 20th results page, because the Acosta business has swamped the system.

    1. You know that most of the people that post here are libertarians right? That not everyone who thinks the media are a bunch of crazed shit flinging monkeys are republicans or “right wingers”?

      1. I’m happy to make allowances for non-crazy, non-right-wing libertarians. It’s just that around here, anyway, they seem pretty thin on the ground.

        Do you number yourself as someone who fits that description, but still thinks, “the media are a bunch of crazed shit flinging monkeys?” I don’t agree with that last part, at least as a general thing, but I would like to hear more from you by way of explanation.

        1. I would not consider myself a right-wing libertarian. But that, I guess, would mostly depend on what your definition of a right-wing versus left-wing libertarian are. As far as crazy, well, aren’t all libertarians a little crazy?

          The last twenty years of journalism bears out that observation (chief among the monkeys are Fox and MSNBC). Obviously this does not apply to every single journalist or media personality, a gross over-generalization on my part. However, their approval rating is lower than congresses (at least according to some polling) so media disdain is a pretty non-partisan occurrence.

          1. DesigNate, I Googled a Gallup poll on media trust. For whatever Gallup is worth, the most recent figure for Democrats (% Great deal/Fair amount of trust) was 51%, for Republicans it was 14%. The Democratic figure is somewhat close to the long-term value for that criterion, but down a bit. The Republican figure shows a precipitous decline, quite recently. Doesn’t seem that non-partisan.

            A complication is that each partisan side now gets to disapprove the overtly partisan media of the other side. As you note, both sides have partisan media to target. That makes it harder to learn from the statistics what folks actually think of more-traditional media, such as the NYT. It’s not hard, of course, to understand what right wingers on this blog think of the NYT, but I’m not sure how representative those blog commenters are, even among right-favoring citizens generally.

            What dismays me about much internet commentary is to see how it relies on uncritical trust of amateur internet sources, but reacts with reflexive disdain for professional journalism?despite that the latter still provides the vast majority of information worth having?including the information on the internet. Of course every information source ought to get appropriate skepticism, but I don’t see much indication that the challenge has been met to teach folks how to be appropriately skeptical. That’s a big problem.

    2. Nice Stephen. Did you cut and paste that from Media Matters?

      I’m not going to do your research for you. If you have an argument to make, do so. But don’t come in here with your arrogant progtarded bullshit like the Rev already pulled.

      Next time, learn what you’re talking about first.

      1. So, for the first time in my life, I accessed Media Matters, to try to figure out what you are talking about. No luck. Got a link, or an explanation?

      2. And also, Last, if I told you what I know, you wouldn’t believe me, right? That’s why I told you to Google it. So you could convince yourself.

        I’m happy to share information with folks who can conduct a civil discussion, and who seem capable of sharing. Not you? Then why should I bother?

  40. Who cares about that whiny cunt Acosta. I’d give props to the WH if they just made him “disappear”.

  41. I watched the video. Acosta moves to push the intern’s hand away and does make contact. Not much of an “assault” but yes, he made contact in attempting to prevent her from taking the mic. That’s a laying on of hands.

    1. And if CNN can bring evidence that the same thing has happened in that room hundreds of times without the reporter losing credentials they have a case.

      Which is why the judge just made a temp ruling and not a judgment.

  42. If I were Trump, I’d replace the cute white lady passing around the mike with a large African American transgender lady (assuming you could find one that leans right). The intersectional “privilege” of that person would overwhelm Acosta because his first instinct (and of all the lefty followers of CNN and mainstream media) would be to grant said mike person with “incapable of doing any wrong” status.

  43. When Marshall unilaterally invented judicial review way back when, he was performing a magic act. The act was to use the prestige of the judiciary to obscure the fact that the judiciary was inventing rules and procedures without any basis beyond their say-so. That these rules and procedures made life easier for many, and were even handed in their application were good reasons for not looking to closely at how the act happened.

    The problem with doing a magic act one too many times is, eventually the kids in the audience will want to pull back the cape and see how the act really works. I think we’re getting to that point with the federal judiciary and bureaucracy. I don’t think we’ll like what replaces it.

  44. The way it looks to me is that the judge simply punted and only issued a temporary order. He based it on the fifth due process clause for which there is precedent in the Sherrill case.

    It does not mean that the WH cannot ban Acosta it just means that they will need to make a case just as CNN must.

    If there were no such thing as a whole process for these credentials it would not be an issue but there is. The argument is that the WH needs to follow the rules or change them. The judge thinks that CNN has a reasonable chance.

    1. Does the White House need to make a case to prevent me from strolling about the White House?

      1. No and that is the point. Very few people have those privileges and all of them for a reason.

        There is a process to get one of these super access passes and Acosta had one.

        The WH revoked the pass claiming he acted inappropriately. The other side can then argue that there are no rules about that and indeed there are none which is why the WH is drawing them up now.

        The judge did not rule either way. The order reflects the opinion that CNN has a reasonable chance of success in court.

        If the WH could not prove that they acted according to rules of conduct they open themselves to a first amendment challenge.

        They could stop having press conferences and revoke all of the passes but that would be political suicide.

        1. There absolutely are rules for this and legal precedent ala Sherrill v. Knight back in the 70’s. It is stunning incompetence that the administration was not aware of this. Where do they get these nincompoops?

      2. The press are supposed to be honey badgers. There was nothing Acosta did which is unusual.

        Where all sides need to be careful with the press and first amendment is next time around it may be the other side in power.

        That is why Fox and others circled the wagons here and they buy ink by the barrel as the saying goes.

  45. Simple solution, No microphone holding interns.

    Answer written questions only, like the current fashion in town meetings.

    1. Multiple mics. Disconnect receipt of the signal from douchebags who won’t shut the hell up.

  46. The only solution is competition. Rotate press access and increase the pool and variety of reporters.. to the point where a precious question can’t be wasted on speechifying.

    1. Online Press Conferences
      WH electronically selects reporter
      Cuts off his sound while answering his question
      Don’t turn the sound back on until you want to hear from that person again

      This would would open up questions to reporters outside the Imperial Metropolis
      Should be done regardless of what happens with Acosta

    2. Or better yet require all public officials to answer questions monthly, and actually answer. Then we would at least know who is honest and knowing they have to face the public and answer for their actions might keep them working to keep those campaign promises

  47. And apparently there is now a right to access, rather than a right to freedom of speech and the press. Wherever does the wording of either amendment grant access anywhere?

  48. So the actual subhead should be “Judge rules on due process, not spurious First Amendment, grounds.” REASON now on a par with CNN re: Trump. Sad.

    1. Reason is MSM without the viewers

      I come here for my daily 2 Minutes Hate.

  49. “However, he notes First Amendment issues can arise if the administration allows some reporters on the grounds but not others”

    Judicial authoritarianism.

    325 million Americans don’t have a White House press pass.
    Has the judge demanded that we all be sent one in the mail?

    Or is it only the ruling class that has vested right to tool about the White House?

  50. Trump admin is backing down. They are going to write up new rules for conduct for press briefings.

    Another Trumpy day in America.

  51. well, here is the definitive answer to the issue:

    CNN filed a lawsuit against Trump

    READ the Constitution, specifically, Article Three Section Two Peragraph Two.
    In ALL cases where an ambassador or “other minister of the public trust” (which surely must include a sitting president) is a named party to the legal case ONLY the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. NO LOWER COURT can take up such a matter.

    That two bit circus court judge has NO AUTHORITY to hear or speak on the matter, as HE is not SCOTUS.

    Further, this Acosta wretch has been making a fool and nuisance of himself at these pressers for a LONG time. I must have read at least six different incidents where Jim Acosta refused to abide by any decent standards of conduct. He has mouthed off to Sanders, refused to yield when rules dictate, has shouted out questions from the floor without being recognised, and generally behaved like a spoilt second grader who thinks he is the centre of the universe.

    This is NOT a “freedom of speech” or “press” issue at all, and this judge KNOWS it NO ONE else in those pressers behaves as badly as has Jim Acosta has done. If CNN wants to send round a reporter who can behave himself, I’m sure he will be welcomed with open arms, and respected. Acosta has NOT respected anyone, and thus must pick up his baseball bat and go home. Crybabies ride the Pine, and Acosta is a crybaby. Grow up if ya wanna play with the Big Boys, Jim.

  52. Great! Return Jim Acosta’s press pass but then there is no law that says that Jim Acosta nor any other CNN reporter has to have a be called to ask a question. Nor does any other CNN reporter have that right to have their questions answered.

  53. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but by extension, doesn’t this mean that any ‘reporter’ who shows up at the White House now has a constitutional right to enter it?

    Also, while the House House may not be Trumps property, but it is a part of our national infrastructure and Trump is the elected person in charge of it. There are state secrets in the White House and so Trump is thoroughly authorized to decide how things are run and can ban people for certain behavior.

    1. No it does not at all mean that.

      And Trump is the president not the supreme emperor. He has to follow the law just like the rest of us.

  54. Give him his pass back and never call upon him again. Case closed.

  55. This was all settled back in the 70’s when the same thing happened with a reporter from ‘the Nation’. The law was spelled out in
    Sherrill v. Knight and the process set by the Whitehouse to handle these situations. How incompetent is this administration that they are just making it up as they go along and never bother to check out the proper procedures first or even last? My lord what sheer stupidity

  56. If there were 1st-A concerns, why didn’t the judge address them, but decide it on Due Process questions?
    Acosta has no 1st-A Right to enter the WH, nor the Briefing Room, and CNN had 49 other passes/journalists it could assign to that who already have “hard passes”.

  57. Sam Donaldson would have made Acosta look like a choir boy.

  58. Okay, so now the WH is codifying and making clear the behavior for journalists at briefings. For the time being, Acosta gets his pass back. Will he follow the rules? Highly unlikely. Then he gets his pass pulled again, this time for violating posted rules. No violation of due process.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.