Associated Press Sues Trump Officials After Ban Over ‘Gulf Of Mexico/America’ Nonsense
The Trump administration's dumbest saga so far just got a bit more serious, thankfully. For the past couple of weeks, we have been talking about how, after Donald Trump ordered the government to change the name of the continental shelf extending from American land be renamed from the all-encompassing Gulf of Mexico," as the whole body of water has been named for centuries, to the Gulf of America," the administration began banning the AP from some press activities over the AP's refusal to make that change in its influential AP Stylebook. To be more specific, the Stylebook refers to the body of water by its traditional (actual) name, while also acknowledging the new name that Trump has given it. After that initial ban, the administration actually expanded the ban on what the AP could attend while also stating that the ban is indefinite."
In my post on the topic, I mentioned that a well-functioning press pool would at this point band together and fight back on behalf of the AP. After all, an attack on one member of the press is, in fact, an attack on all of them in the long run. Initially, this did not happen. In fact, some of the more idiotic members of the press tried to argue that any attempt to fight back would be giving Trump what he wants. As opposed to, I guess, simply letting him trample on the rights of the press and speech rights. Somehow that would not be giving him what he wants, though I can't explain how that would be.
Fortunately, the rest of the press eventually got around to doing something in the form of signing onto a protest letter. Oh, and the AP has now sued the administration for a violation of both its First and Fifth Amendment rights. The suit is embedded below for all to read, but let's acknowledge first that the press pool, including far-right outlets, finally partook in some collective action, tepid though it may be.
This week, about 40 news organizations signed onto a letter organized by the White House Correspondents Association, urging the White House to reverse its policy against the AP.
Reporting indicates that signatories to that letter included both Fox News and Newsmax. When Newsmax is pushing back on Trump over an attack on the press, that should really mean something.
But now, onto the lawsuit. As mentioned, it claims that the administration's actions violate both the AP's due process rights, as well as its speech rights.
The ban violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As the D.C. Circuit has made clear, journalists' first amendment interest" in access to the White House undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment." Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 130-31 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Defendants gave the AP no prior or written notice of, and no formal opportunity to challenge, their arbitrary determination that the AP would indefinitely lose access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other limited areas as a member of the press pool - as well as access to larger locations open to a wider group of journalists and reporters with White House press credentials - unless the AP adopted the Administration's preferred language in its reporting.
The ban also violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The D.C. Circuit has made clear that denying journalists access to White House press events based upon the content of the journalist's speech" is prohibited under the first amendment." Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 129. Having opened the White House and certain areas to the press, the First Amendment requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons." Ateba v. Jean-Pierre, 706 F. Supp. 3d 63, 75-76 (D.D.C. 2023) (quoting Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 129) (emphasis in original), appeal argued, No. 24-5004 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 15, 2024). Defendants have not provided, nor could they provide, any compelling reason for their arbitrary denial of the AP's access. Rather, Defendants' actions are impermissibly based on their dislike of the content of the AP's expression and what they perceive as the AP's viewpoint reflected in the content of its expression. The White House ban of the AP also constitutes impermissible retaliation, as it was instituted to punish the AP for its constitutionally protected speech in ways that would chill the speech of a reasonable person of ordinary firmness.
Remember all of those claims about how Trump learned lessons from his first term and would be more effective, learned, and efficient at governing this go around? Well, it appears that won't always be the case. Trump did this in his first term, banning CNN's Jim Acosta from the press pool because Trump didn't like his questions. CNN sued, just like the AP has, and eventually Acosta was allowed back in. That will almost certainly be how this thing goes, too, unless Trump takes this all the way to a suspiciously compliant Supreme Court. Even then, this might be a bridge to far for those gods in black robes.
And there should be no question that this is all due to Trump's pettiness. The administration may attempt to obfuscate that in its legal response, but the Dear Leader has been quite clear as to what is driving all of this in very public comments.
In stopping the AP from attending press events at the White House and Mar-a-Lago, or flying on Air Force One in the agency's customary spot, the Trump team directly cited the AP's decision not to fully follow the president's renaming.
We're going to keep them out until such time as they agree that it's the Gulf of America,"Trump said Tuesday.
Describing this suit as an open and shut" case of a First Amendment violation at a minimum probably doesn't do it justice. This is more of an attempted assault of the First Amendment and it will be quite telling to see how the courts respond.
Anything less than a temporary restraining order to reinstate the AP's access, followed by a swift finding for the AP, would be the courts stomping all over our First, and I would argue most important, Amendment.