0
0
A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of President Donald Trump in his ongoing legal dispute with the Associated Press (AP), permitting the administration to limit the news agency’s access to the Oval Office and other areas within the White House.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a lower court ruling that had found the administration’s actions violated the AP’s First Amendment rights. The appeals court granted a partial stay on the lower court’s injunction, siding with Trump’s argument that the White House is not a public forum and that the president has broad discretion over who may be granted access.
“We grant in part the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal,” Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao wrote. “The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion.”
The court further held that the administration has the right to make access decisions “including on the basis of viewpoint,” cautioning that denying the stay would cause “irreparable harm” to the president’s independence over his workspace.
This case originated when the Trump administration barred the AP from certain press events after the outlet refused to use the term “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico,” following an executive order signed by Trump directing government documents to adopt the new naming.
In April, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled in favor of the AP, issuing an injunction that compelled the White House to restore the agency’s access. “If the Government opens its doors to some journalists… it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” McFadden wrote.
In response, the Trump administration increased control over the White House press pool, a move the AP described as an attempt to circumvent the court’s ruling.
Following the appellate decision on Friday, an AP spokesperson expressed disappointment, stating, “We are reviewing our options.”
This ruling marks a significant development in the legal battle over press freedom and executive authority, with broader implications for how administrations may regulate media access to government spaces.
