1/ The WH revocation is, of course, outrageous. But the Free Speech Clause claim--that it was done because Trump disfavors @CNN's coverage--raises a really interesting First Amendment question. Governments of course provide preferred access . . .
@knightcolumbia
@knightcolumbia
2/ ... every day to some reporters/outlets compared to others. And it's often done on the basis of the content of their coverage (e.g., mainstream media are treated much better than those w/fringe views; Trump gives FoxNews special access; etc.). I'm not aware of whether ...
3/ ... there's much if any case law (in military embedding cases, perhaps?) about the possible constitutional limits of such ubiquitous selectivity. If you know of any, please holler.
@GeorgetownICAP
@GeorgetownICAP
4/ Aha! In Sherrill v. Knight, a 1977 CTADC case, it appears the court *and* the WH agreed that "denial of a White House press pass is violative of the first amendment . . . if it is based upon the content of the journalist's speech." Would the courts so hold today? Dunno.
5/ Reporters' Committee amicus brief relies exclusively on Sherrill:
law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-conten… …
@GeorgetownICAP
law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-conten… …
@GeorgetownICAP
