Thread by @BBuchman_CNS

Let's break this the gov't position a bit more on Acosta ahead of the hearing:
THREAD -
In its lawsuit, CNN claims the White House decision to strip Acosta of his White House access was an act of retaliation.

They claimed precedent established in Robert Sherrill v. H. Stuart Knight, an appellate court ruling in Washington, D.C., supported their position.
In Sherrill, the court found that the Secret Service could not deny a journalist White House press credentials...

unless a truly compelling reason was given. Sherrill, a reporter for the Nation, had a track record of asking pointed questions to both Democratic and Republican politicians. In 1966, under LBJ, his req was denied. Again under Nixon.

The govt claimed its refusal was based on their belief that Sherrill posed a security risk but ultimately, their argument failed and the reporter’s access was restored. Baer argues CNN’s interpretation of Sherrill is wrong.

“Far from establishing all-purpose rules for regulating White House press passes...Sherrill addressed solely the Secret Service’s decision to deny a pass on security grounds to a journalist to whom the White House had otherwise decided to grant access,” he wrote.

Acosta, unlike Sherrill, had his access removed at a different point in the application process and the choice to suspend him also came from a “much higher level” decision maker than in Sherrill. It was not some department head that removed Acosta, but the president., Baer says.

Acosta’s due process rights were also kept intact, Baer argues, because the reporter was given a proper explanation of the reasons behind his removal.

“Mr. Acosta remains able to practice his profession and report on the White House. CNN’s straits are even less dire, given that the network has roughly 50 other employees who retain hard passes & who are more than capable of covering the WH complex on CNN’s behalf,” Baer wrote.