A restrictive order – variety

WASHINGTON – CNN's lawsuit against the Trump administration will be the subject of its first major test on Wednesday. A federal judge will hold a hearing on whether to grant a temporary restraint order to restore the plight of White House correspondent Jim Acosta.

The hearing is scheduled in Washington before US District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, appointed by Trump.

CNN's lawsuit, filed on Tuesday by a legal team that includes Ted Boutrous and Ted Olson, has been endorsed by a number of First Amendment and journalism groups, who see the potential impact of the case on access. in the White House and the freedom of the press in general.

In seeking temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, CNN must prove that it will likely succeed on the merits and that Acosta is at risk of suffering irreparable harm without this immediate remedy, among others.

Media experts say at the very least that the network has a strong case for non-compliance.

Gary Bostwick, Los Angeles-based media and first amendment lawyer, said that CNN not only claimed that Acosta's first and fifth amendment rights had been violated, but that the episode had also violated the law on the procedure. administrative. The secret services are designated as accused in the trial, and "they are supposed to hear and present evidence," Bostwick said.

Related

A 1977 notice was frequently quoted on a DC circuit in the case of Robert Sherrill, a journalist with the Nation, who was denied a pass. The judges decided that the government had a limited right to refuse a pass for the media, notably for reasons of presidential security, but that procedures had to be in place for the journalist to have a written explanation of the refusal and a possibility of refuting.

CNN stated that this did not happen. The Trump administration "has never suggested, nor could it suggest in good faith, that Acosta's presence in the White House's briefing room raised" concerns for the physical security of the President and his family ", or any other urgent situation requiring urgent decision-making. , "Said the network in its ranking.

"It is obvious that the White House has taken this step hastily without giving notice or opportunity to respond, let alone a written decision based on well-defined criteria," said Douglas E. Mirell, specialist of the Greenberg First Amendment Glusker.

CNN is also trying to show that the incident was a "pretexual and shameless attempt to censor a report and a network that the president considers to be one of his critics," in violation of the First Amendment. In one of his memoirs, CNN's legal team described the many cases in which Trump attacked the network as "enemy of the people" and "false" new". The goal is to show that the president "was very clear about his dislike" towards the network and other journalists.

Nevertheless, Bostwick noted that this was "not an open-ended case where [the government] go in and try to close a newspaper. This is more attenuated. "

"To be clearer, the First Amendment obviously forbids the government to gag anyone, but there are subtle ways to try to gag one," he said. "This is one of the easiest ways to stop the press from reporting and giving news. This is not a direct gagging. This is an indirect ban. "We do not like the way you cover us."

It's no longer a challenge to prove that if a government entity tried to close a scrum, Bostwick said.

"They will have to do more to show that the goal and the result is to end press freedom," he said.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, press secretary, said Tuesday in a statement that CNN already had "nearly 50 hard pass holders, and that Mr. Acosta was no more or less special than any other media or journalist as regards the first amendment ".

"After Mr. Acosta put two questions to the president – to which the president had responded – he physically refused to give a White House microphone to a trainee, so that other journalists can ask their questions. This is not the first time this journalist refuses to give in to other journalists, "she said.

"The White House One can not hold an orderly press conference and just when a journalist acts in this way, which is neither appropriate nor professional, "she said.

The case of CNN also highlighted the reasons why it is urgent for Acosta to see its powers restored. He is their chief correspondent in Washington and, as he stated in an affidavit, "the revocation of my press title to the White House does not only destroy my ability to carry on my current job, she is telling me will follow the rest of my career. "

The network tries to show that the Trump administration's explanations on the revocation of its powers, that is to say that it got hold of a White House trainee whose behavior was "inappropriate" – have exchange.

The video does not show Acosta placing her hands on the inside, but a hand inadvertently touching her arm while she was trying to grab the mic. CNN stated that the video sent by Huckabee Sanders as a result of the incident, in which some parts are slowed down and accelerated, "shows that its justification was pre-textual and not in good faith".

CNN also pointed out what Trump himself had said since the incident, including a remark he made on Friday that "there could be other people too" whose powers are revoked for non-treatment.[ing] the White House and the office of the presidency with respect. "

"I think there is very little to lose to continue in this direction," Mirell said. "Indeed, in my opinion, this is a fair trial that deserves to be judged appropriately unless the White House decides that the cost of this is offset by the simple fact of handing over the passport hard to Mr. Acosta. "