Nah. There’s something bogus about this.
The White House press briefings are voluntary, and they grant passes to whomever they wish - cancelling pressers or revoking passes may have political consequences due to the PR perception of “transparency”, but not legal consequences.
I think this is nothing but a PR stunt: CNN sues the White House, knowing they can easily find a judge willing to render a non-binding opinion - virtually nothing more than a statement - containing platitudes about freedom of the press, which they can trumpet all over the place in an attempt to embarrass the White House.
How is banning one reporter out of thousands restricting the freedom of the press? That’s what CNN lawyers will have to convince five Supreme Court justices - and that’s IF the SC even agrees to hear their arguments.
Judge did not rule against the President or his rights. The stupid lawyers representing the White House case to the judge made a serious mistake.
Basically the judge hasn’t determined whether a President has the right to revoke a press pass to attend the briefings. He is allowing Acosta back in because the lawyers could not even tell the Judge who made the decision to ban Acosta. That there is a process in place to follow and the White House did not follow the process to revoke the Hard Pass.
The judge does appear on our side believe it or not. He clearly stated that he does not agree with CNN lawyers on several points and said he doesn’t care if Acosta is never called on. And if the White House wants to ban Acosta again they need to simply follow the procedure for revoking a Hard Pass (whatever that is).
A little research is everyone friend.