Judge Plans Swift Ruling in CNN Suit Against Trump Over Press Access
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee to the federal trial bench, heard arguments for about two hours in a packed courtroom. Kelly said he planned to issue a ruling by Thursday afternoon.
November 14, 2018 at 05:44 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Update: U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said Thursday he plans to issue an oral ruling Friday morning at 10 a.m.
A federal judge in Washington did not immediately rule Wednesday on CNN's demand that the Trump administration reinstate the press credentials of a news reporter, Jim Acosta, whose lawyers accused the White House of retaliating against him for critical coverage and verbal skirmishes with the president.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a former U.S. Senate lawyer whom Trump appointed to the federal trial bench last year, heard arguments for about two hours in a packed courtroom. Kelly said he planned to issue a ruling by Thursday afternoon.
CNN, represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous, pointed to instances where Trump publicly criticized Acosta and CNN as “fake news.” Kelly appeared to question whether the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials was driven by the content of his coverage—raising First Amendment issues—or instead by his conduct at a press conference on Nov. 7, which the White House cited as the reason.
“Why now,” after previously criticizing Acosta's coverage, was the White House revoking Acosta's press pass? Kelly asked Boutrous.
Boutrous recalled that Trump described Acosta as “rude” for refusing to hand over a microphone and yield to other reporters at last week's press conference. “'Rudeness' is really a codeword for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter,'” said Boutrous, who was joined in court by a Gibson Dunn team including Theodore Olson, a partner at the firm and former solicitor general under the George W. Bush administration.
Justice Department attorney James Burnham defended the White House's decision, saying the move was based on Acosta's conduct and not content. He told Kelly: “A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint.” Burnham said CNN has about 50 other employees with so-called “hard passes” to access the White House.
“Grandstanding and disrupting a press conference is just not a viewpoint,” Burnham said.
In court papers leading up to the hearing, CNN argued the revocation of Acosta's press credentials violated the First Amendment. They are seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Boutrous argued Wednesday in court for CNN.
“This severe and unprecedented punishment is the culmination of years of hostility by President Trump against CNN and Acosta based on the contents of their reporting—an unabashed attempt to censor the press and exclude reporters from the White House who challenge and dispute the President's point of view,” CNN's lawyers wrote in their complaint, filed Tuesday.
The White House, in rescinding Acosta's credentials, pointed to a video from a recent White House press conference showing Acosta resist an intern's efforts to remove the microphone the reporter was holding as he asked a question to Trump. CNN has disputed that Acosta had placed his hands on the White House official.
The Justice Department on Wednesday, in a new court filing hours before the hearing, defended the revocation of Acosta's credentials, contending the president has “broad discretion” in granting access to the White House.
“No journalist has a First Amendment right to enter the White House and the president need not survive First Amendment scrutiny whenever he exercises his discretion to deny an individual journalist one of the many hundreds of passes granting on-demand access to the White House complex,” the Justice Department said.
The lawsuit was backed Wednesday by several news organizations, including Fox News, The New York Times and The Washington Post.
“It is imperative that independent journalists have access to the President and his activities, and that journalists are not barred for arbitrary reasons. Our news organizations support the fundamental constitutional right to question this President, or any President,” the news organizations said in a statement released by Ballard Spahr LLP.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInfluencers Putting Companies on Hot Seat by Demanding 'Reverse' Morals Clauses
8 minute readWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readFTC Decries Social Media Platforms' 'Vast Surveillance' of Users
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250