Citizens Sue Trump Over White House Press Bans. Answer Bad Reporting With the Truth, Not a Locked Door.
A new lawsuit, Roth v. Trump, argues that the White House press corps is a public forum and that viewpoint-based bans on reporters harm ordinary citizens.
The facts come first below. My opinion follows in the section marked as opinion.
A group of scholars, journalists and a high school teacher sued President Donald Trump and top White House officials on Monday, arguing that the administration's practice of barring disfavored reporters from White House press spaces violates the First Amendment rights of ordinary citizens who depend on that reporting. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Courthouse News Service reported.
The case, Roth v. Trump, was brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. It challenges what the groups call the administration's policy of restricting or revoking the access of White House journalists whose reporting the president says is "false" or "fake," according to the Knight Institute's announcement.
Who is suing, and what they want
The plaintiffs are Yale legal scholar Kenneth Roth, Yale history professor Beverly Gage, Press Watch editor Daniel Froomkin, Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, Brooklyn high school social studies teacher Peter Schmidt-Nowara and Ethan Young, editor-in-chief of the Daily Pennsylvanian at the University of Pennsylvania. The suit names Trump, Communications Director Steven Cheung, Chief of Staff Susan Wiles and Secret Service Director Sean M. Curran as defendants, Courthouse News reported.
"The policy is unconstitutional because it conditions access and participation in the White House Press Forum on criteria that are viewpoint-based and unreasonable," the plaintiffs wrote in the 25-page complaint, according to Courthouse News. They argue the White House press corps is a "limited public forum" protected under the First Amendment, and they note that Trump himself has described the practice as his "ban on the free press."
The Knight Institute said the case differs from earlier suits because it is filed on behalf of ordinary citizens rather than news organizations, and because it seeks a broad injunction that would protect the entire White House press corps, not just individual outlets, according to its announcement.
The cases that came before
The suit cites the White House's ban last month on journalists from CNN, Politico and MS NOW, which followed its ban on Associated Press reporters and photographers last year. A Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington first granted CNN, MS NOW and Politico a temporary restraining order directing the White House to "immediately return, reinstate and restore" their journalists' hard passes. On Oct. 13, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted the three a preliminary injunction, finding the revocations likely violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights, Courthouse News reported. White House representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday afternoon, the outlet said.
"The First Amendment protects the public's right to know what its government is doing. The White House cannot decide what information Americans receive by punishing critical reporting," said Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight Institute, in the announcement.
Opinion: Answer bad reporting with the truth, not with a locked door
I understand the frustration behind these bans. Many Americans, conservatives above all, believe national outlets too often get stories wrong and slant their coverage. A president is free to say so, loudly, as often as he likes. He is free to call reporting false and make his case to the public.
What he should not do is decide which reporters may stand in the room based on whether he likes what they write. The White House belongs to the American people, not to any one man or party. A federal judge appointed by this president has already ordered the revoked passes restored. And the rule will not stay with this administration. The power to expel the press for its viewpoint, once accepted, will be in the hands of the next president too, and conservative outlets will be the ones on the sidewalk.
Scripture reminds us that hard words are not always enemies: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful" (Proverbs 27:6). Not every critic is a friend, but a leader who hears only flattery is in danger. The same standard I asked of the Justice Department in James Comey Charged a Third Time Over Alleged 2016 Leak applies here: power should be used by rule, not by grudge.
The answer to a biased story is a better story, a faster correction and a public that reads widely. Let the reporters in. Let the president answer them. The people can judge for themselves.
