The 5th amendment reads as follows
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
How does this apply in this case in any way?
“...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
I don't thin it does. Acoster wasn't in any sort of legal jeopardy.
....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property...
Was Acosta deprived of life? No.
Was Acosta deprived of liberty? Not exactly
Was Acosta deprived of property? The hard pass really wasn’t his property - so, No.
Case dismissed.
The 5th amendment does not apply, given that the context of it is “criminal case”, “capital” or “otherwise infamous crime”...not administrative matters.
The whole case should have been thrown out from the start. Since it was not What happen I that for the first time in history the WH will set rules and the decorum for so-called reporters that will be allowed in the press briefings. If violated they can lose their press pass are be kicked out. Acosta and the rest of the children may end up wishing they had not taken this to court. Who is setting the rules the President people.
Acosta claims a "property right" in the press pass, and while the President has no obligation to give Acosta a press pas in the first instance, once it does, it can't take it away without providing Acosta with a minimal level of due process.