The White House Correspondents Association on Thursday joined the chorus of media outlets and press advocates that have filed amicus briefs in support of CNN in its suit against the White House for revoking correspondent Jim Acosta’s press credentials after he sparred with President Trump.
The WHCA called the White House’s argument — that the President has authority to block anyone from covering the White House — a “dangerous legal position” and urged the court to “roundly reject” the notion.
“The President’s view of the law is wrong,” the WHCA wrote in the court filing. “While he may have absolute discretion to exclude a member of the press from his Trump Tower residence, he does not have absolute discretion to exclude a member of the press from the White House.”
The association argued it is “fundamental to our democracy” for the press to be able to “vigorously and regularly” question elected official.
“When government officials—including the President of the United States here—attempt to restrict, curtail, intimidate, or silence the press in its news gathering activities, the rights of the people and the press, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, are infringed, and our democratic form of government is placed in jeopardy,” the group wrote.
CNN filed a lawsuit against the White House earlier this week, alleging that it was unconstitutional for officials to strip Acosta of his press credentials. The White House initially defended its decision by claiming Acosta put his hands on an intern when she tried to take a microphone from him during a recent press conference. Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders circulated a doctored video of the incident to back up the claim.
Footage of the incident showed that Acosta pulled the mic away from the intern, but touched her arm while pulling away. The White House has since dropped that argument.
Other media outlets, including Fox News, have backed up CNN in the suit, which asks that Acosta’s press credentials be restored.
Judge Timothy Kelly is expected to rule on CNN’s suit on Friday.
Read the WHCA filing below:
Hopefully Trump loses and Acosta is reinstated. I imagine Trump then will simply ignore him?
Concurrently, how about a WHCA boycott of ALL Trump events?
Puncture that bigly overblown ego…
I have no idea what the actual law is on this particular situation. But certainly if it’s allowed to stand, there’ll be a huge chilling effect. Push too hard, and you’re shut out of the most prominent position you ever had—and no matter what you say, that’s what it is for most of these people—and you’ll almost certainly take a huge pay cut and cripple your career for life as a result.
I’m pretty sure Trump is incapable of not picking at that scab. He may not call on him, but he will announce he’s not calling on him, opine on his character, etc. while not calling on him. He might even go so far as to assign him a seat in the back that is likely to collapse or be the size for a kindergartener or comes labeled with “dunce” or some other stupid thing.
Maybe. It happened once, after the supposed birtherism-ending announcement. I’m not holding my breath.