Six New York Residents Challenge White House Media Access Rules

Six residents filed a federal lawsuit on Monday in New York, claiming that President Donald Trump’s restrictions on press access violate the public’s right to know about their government. The suit names the President, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Communications Director Steven Cheung, and Secret Service Director Sean M. Curran as defendants.

The plaintiffs argue that the administration’s policy of excluding disfavored news outlets constitutes viewpoint-based discrimination in a limited public forum. By penalizing specific media organizations for their coverage, the White House effectively reduces the variety of independent reporting available to the American public.

Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, stated that the White House cannot dictate the information Americans receive by punishing critical reporting. She noted that when the administration expels reporters based on their coverage, the public loses access to independent voices and receives information closer to government propaganda.

The lawsuit was filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute and the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. The six plaintiffs are individuals who rely on White House press coverage for their professional work. They include Kenneth Roth, a former Human Rights Watch executive; Daniel Froomkin, a media journalist; Beverly Gage, a Yale history professor; Peter Schmidt-Nowara, a high school civics teacher; Benjamin Wittes, a legal journalist; and Ethan Young, a student journalist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Schmidt-Nowara, who teaches at Brooklyn Technical High School, said he joined the suit because his students deserve to hear from a free and independent press. He expressed concern that the administration's restrictions are cutting off access to crucial information. Young, the student journalist, added that he relies on a diverse cohort of White House reporters to understand decisions made in Washington and their impact on his college community.

The complaint references existing litigation involving CNN, MS NOW, Politico, The Associated Press, The New York Times, and ABC. A federal judge recently extended an order preventing the White House from enforcing the ban against CNN, MS NOW, and Politico while their case proceeds. However, CNN continues to face disruptions in its video pool coverage. The Associated Press is also in court over its exclusion from the Oval Office and Air Force One.

The Trump administration responded to the new filing through an unidentified White House official, stating that no person may demand access to the Oval Office. The official added that media outlets peddling misinformation and defamation are capable of reporting their stories from outside the building.

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional because it imposes unreasonable, viewpoint-based restrictions. They also seek a broad injunction barring the defendants from enforcing the policy against any news outlet, current or future, that covers the White House.