U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled on April 8 that President Donald Trump’s administration cannot exclude The Associated Press news wire service (AP) from limited-access presidential events, solely based on its refusal to use the name “Gulf of America” instead of Gulf of Mexico.
The AP had sued the Trump administration and some of its press staff after it lost its place in the exclusive, 13-member press pool, which has access to the president in places like the Oval Office, or while traveling on Air Force One.
McFadden ruled that the government infringed upon the AP’s First Amendment rights by denying it access to events on Feb. 11, after it refused to update its style guide to reflect Trump’s order that changed the name of the body of water bordering the southern United States.
On Feb. 25, the White House announced that its press team would decide who was eligible for press pool access, taking that privilege away from the White House Press Correspondents’ Association.
The AP defended itself by saying it was an international outlet, and that most of the world still used the term “Gulf of Mexico.”
It alleged in court that the White House was limiting its access to events that were generally open to most other media.
McFadden found that the AP had indeed been “excluded from large events far more often than its peers,” although it was sometimes allowed to have a photographer, or a journalist from one of its overseas branches, present.
He also noted that the AP has been “hemorrhaging” money for the past two months, as the quality of its reporting and photography declined due to lost access, and its customers turned to other outlets.
However, the judge did not directly order the White House to grant the AP “permanent access to the Oval Office, the East Room, or any other media event,” but narrowly ruled that once access is granted to other outlets, the AP must not be excluded because of its editorial viewpoint.
“Indeed, the AP is not necessarily entitled to the ‘first in line every time’ permanent press pool access it enjoyed under the [White House Press Correspondents’ Association],” he wrote in his ruling.
“No, the court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints.
“The Constitution requires no less.”
Tom Ozimek contributed to this report.
