The confrontation between the Trump administration and a major news agency continued as they faced off in court on Thursday, with another session scheduled for Friday. This conflict arises from the administration’s attempt to dictate which journalists can have access to the presidency for interviews and questioning. Lawyers presented arguments to a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals about maintaining a previous court’s ruling that barred the administration from excluding reporters from significant events such as those held in the Oval Office or on Air Force One.
Uncertainty surrounds when the appellate judges will issue a decision. The following day, the involved parties will present arguments to U.S. District Court Judge Trevor N. McFadden, who ruled last week favoring the news agency. The agency has requested that the judge enforce his decision.
Initially, the restriction on the news agency’s ability to cover the president arose after President Trump became disgruntled with the agency’s refusal to change the designation of the Gulf of Mexico. Judge McFadden noted last week that exclusion based on disagreement is unwarranted. Despite this, the agency claims the White House continues to disregard the court order by denying their journalists access, while Trump’s representatives argue that a new system of rotating reporters has been implemented.
Eric McArthur from the Justice Department suggested that the president alone decides who has access to administration events, similarly choosing between journalists for individual interviews.
The news agency’s attorney, Charles Tobin, countered that the president is not subject to judicial demands about whom he should engage. However, discrimination based on viewpoint is not permissible when organized public coverage occurs through designated media pools.
“The current White House objective appears to be controlling the narrative and the perspective of the news agency,” Tobin asserted.
The judicial panel will need to navigate the complexities of determining the extent of presidential discretion over media access. Tobin acknowledged that presidents can engage with journalists whose perspectives align with theirs, raising Judge Gregory Katsas’s concern about the proximity of that to the current situation.
The distinction Tobin emphasized was between exclusion versus selection, which is opposed by the administration’s legal team. “President Trump is not compelled to manage the press pool identically to past presidents,” argued McArthur, affirming that selection criteria could include viewpoint.
Judges voiced concern over potential judicial overreach in media coverage management. Tobin reiterated the lower court’s stance that First Amendment rights are infringed by excluding the agency based on dissenting reportage.
“The president of the United States does not have the liberty to contravene the Constitution,” Tobin remarked.