Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times,
An appeals court on July 22 declined the latest attempt by The Associated Press to lift Trump administration restrictions that bar its journalists from accessing certain areas of the White House.
In a one-page order, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s 11 active judges rejected the news agency’s request for an en banc review—meaning all the judges would hear the case—of an earlier June 6 decision by a divided three-judge panel.
The move left in place the previous ruling, which found the administration could legally restrict the AP’s access to news events in limited spaces, including the Oval Office and Air Force One, while the case plays out in court.
“The court’s standard for en banc review is not met in today’s case. Correct or not, the emergency panel’s unpublished stay is a nonprecedential order that did not purport to resolve the appeal’s merits. And an order’s inability to create an enduring intracircuit conflict or to bind future panels to an exceptionally important legal principle strongly counsels against full-court intervention,” Judge Justin Walker wrote in his concurring opinion denying the motion for en banc reconsideration.
“Time will tell if today’s decision marks a lasting return to this court’s high standard for en banc review.”
The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by the AP in February after President Donald Trump barred the agency from entering the Oval Office and Air Force One as part of a press pool until it adopts his administration’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America in its style guide.
The lawsuit lists White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich, and chief of staff Susan Wiles as defendants.
It alleges the White House’s actions violate the First and Fifth amendments of the Constitution, and seeks to regain the news agency’s full access to the White House.
“The press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government,” the complaint states.
“The Constitution does not allow the government to control speech. Allowing such government control and retaliation to stand is a threat to every American’s freedom.”
The AP’s style guide is widely used by many media organizations. The lawsuit noted that while the news agency referred to the body of water between Mexico and Florida “by its original name” in its style guidance, it also acknowledged “the new name Trump has chosen,” in his January executive order directing federal agencies to refer to the gulf as the Gulf of America.
The Trump administration had argued in court documents that the decision to grant journalists “special access” to the White House is a “quintessentially discretionary presidential choice that infringes no constitutional right.”
In April, District Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled that the government could not retaliate against the AP’s decision not to follow the president’s executive order and ordered it to lift the restrictions imposed on the news agency.
The D.C. Circuit panel paused McFadden’s order in its June ruling, finding that the lower court injunction “impinges on the President’s independence and control over his private workspaces” and that the White House was likely to succeed in defending against the AP lawsuit.
AP spokesman Patrick Maks said the news agency was disappointed by the court’s latest decision but remains focused on “the strong district court opinion in support of free speech,” as the case continues.
“As we’ve said throughout, the press and the public have a fundamental right to speak freely without government retaliation,” Marks said in a statement to media outlets.
The White House said the lawsuit filed by the AP was baseless and criticized what it described as the news agency’s “self-absorbed actions.”
The Epoch Times has contacted a spokesperson for The Associated Press for further comment.