Freedom of the Press

Edited - added legal brief at the end.
I realize we live in a litigious world, where the laws have become relative, and for the right price lawyers are available to argue any case you want to bring against anyone you don’t like, but let’s talk about CNN and Acosta v Donald J. Trump, John F. Kelly, William Shine, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and the United States Secret Service (including Randolph D. Alles and John Doe).

As I understand the case the plaintiffs (CNN and Acosta) argue the President’s decision to revoke Acosta’s press pass is a violation of CNN and Acosta’s 1^st and 5^th Amendment protections and are asking a judge to order the WH to allow access while the case is decided.  They argue Acosta needs the “hard pass” credentials to allow him to do his job and report the news.  They also suggest CNN attempted to resolve this through a good faith negotiation prior to bringing the suit.

On the surface, the latter claim seems unbelievable based on the hostile relationship CNN, its reporters, and the WH public relations arm has had for the past two years, but that is just my opinion.  That said, I offer these lay opinions which I believe represent a common view held by my peers.

Revoking a single reporter’s credentials does not violate the 1st Amendment rights of the press.  I know the press would argue differently based on a fear of precedent, but the amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 

That said, there is probably court precedent where the judiciary has found the government cannot act in a capricious manner to restrict access of reporters whose reporting they don’t like.  The question then becomes does the removal of one individual’s pass to the WH actually limit CNN’s ability to report?  Of course, they could have reassigned Acosta and replaced him with another reporter, as other organizations have done when reporters become “persona non grata” to the President, but we live in a world where the President cannot be allowed to ever appear to win because his opponents have determined he is the villain.

The argument that CNN and Acosta’s 5th amendment rights were violated is an interesting expansion of what decisions actually require compliance with an amendment written to protect the citizenry in criminal accusations.  The 5th Amendment says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So, on the surface, it sure seems that CNN and Acosta are viewing their suspension from the WH press room as some sort of criminal conviction where they are illegally charged with an infamous crime without the right to defend themselves.

Perhaps this could all have been avoided if the other reporters in the room had acted to self-regulate the grandstanding of one reporter, but that is neither here nor there now.  It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

I am guessing the lawsuit was filed in a court where the plaintiffs would expect to prevail and we will see an injunction approved while the finger pointing continues.
https://www.scribd.com/document/393373607/Acosta-v-Trump-Brief-of-One-America-News-Network#fullscreen&from_embed