A federal judge who ruled that the Trump White House’s ban on the Associated Press was a violation of the First Amendment nevertheless declined to challenge the administration’s response: A new policy that limits the wire service’s access but doesn’t restrict it altogether.
After a hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, Judge Trevor McFadden said that he was “inclined to agree with the government” that the new policy was “facially neutral.”
McFadden turned down the AP‘s request to issue a new order to enforce his previously ruling, that the White House must end its ban on the wire service on the basis of its content. Trump and his team had restricted the AP from the Oval Office and other events because it declined to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America in its style guidance.
The judge’s order went into effect on Monday. It was not until Thursday, though, that an AP photographer was allowed back into the press pool. An AP print reporter will be allowed in to pool on Saturday, when the president is expected to be golfing.
In light of the judge’s order, the White House announced a new policy eliminated designated pool slots for wire service reporters. The AP’s print reporter, who previously had a regular spot in the pool, now would be put into a regular rotation of not just wire services but other members of the press corps.
The AP’s attorney, Charles Tobin, argued that the new policy still punished the news organization.
“We believe they did this punitively to dilute the AP” in its access, Tobin said. He cited a provision in the new policy that stated that the president “retains absolute discretion over access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other comparably sensitive spaces.’”
Although McFadden turned down the AP’s motion, he left open the possibility of a further challenge from the news organization, warning that any non-compliance with his order would be “very problematic” and there could be “serious consequences.” He said that it will be “pretty telling” over time just how many times that the AP is selected in the pool compared to its wire service competitors. He denied the AP’s motion without prejudice, meaning that they could seek a new challenge.
“The proof is in the pudding,” the judge said, adding that time will tell whether the AP was repeatedly receiving “second class treatment” compared to its wire service rivals.
More to come.
