First Amendment Rights Under Trump: The Fucking Press Has No Freedom in Trump's World
Donald Trump's ban of the Associated Press from White House press briefings isn't just another authoritarian power grab – it's a direct assault on constitutional law that would make Nixon blush. This latest attack on press freedom demonstrates exactly why the First Amendment's press protections were enshrined in the Constitution to begin with.
The Constitutional Framework
The First Amendment's Press Clause doesn't just protect the abstract concept of press freedom – it establishes specific, legally enforceable rights that Trump's Associated Press ban directly violates. In Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980), the Supreme Court established that the First Amendment provides a constitutional right of access to government proceedings. This right of access has been consistently upheld and expanded through decades of jurisprudence. Under Sherrill v. Knight (1977), the D.C. Circuit Court established that the White House cannot deny press passes arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. The court held that "the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons." This precedent alone makes Trump's "unfair coverage" justification legally insufficient.
Legal Framework for Press Access
The constitutional framework for press access rests on several key Supreme Court decisions: Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982) established that restrictions on press access must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. Trump's vague allegations of "fake news" fail this test spectacularly. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (1986) created the "experience and logic" test for determining whether government proceedings must remain open to the press. White House press briefings, with their long history of press access and vital role in democratic accountability, clearly meet both prongs of this test.
Constitutional Violations
Trump's AP ban violates established First Amendment doctrine in multiple ways:
Viewpoint Discrimination
In Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995), the Supreme Court held that viewpoint discrimination is an egregious form of content discrimination that triggers strict scrutiny. Trump's explicit targeting of AP for its coverage is textbook viewpoint discrimination.
Prior Restraint
While not a classic prior restraint case like Near v. Minnesota (1931), the AP ban functions as a de facto prior restraint by preventing one of America's largest news organizations from gathering news at all. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that prior restraints bear a heavy presumption against constitutional validity.
Retaliation
The ban constitutes unconstitutional retaliation for protected First Amendment activity under Perry v. Sindermann (1972), which prohibits government officials from retaliating against protected speech, limiting it, or otherwise suggesting it can and cannot behave in a certain way as far as the White House is considered.
Historical Context and Legal Precedent
The courts have consistently struck down attempts to restrict press access to government functions. The Pentagon Papers case established that the government bears "a heavy burden of showing justification" for any restraint on press freedom. Trump's administration hasn't even attempted to meet this burden, instead relying on demonstrably false claims about AP's coverage.
Specific Constitutional Violations
Overbreadth
The blanket ban on all AP reporters violates the overbreadth doctrine established in Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973). Even if the White House had legitimate concerns about specific AP reporters (it doesn't), a total ban on the organization is unconstitutionally overbroad.
Vagueness
Trump's justification for the ban – allegations of "unfair coverage" – is unconstitutionally vague under the standard set in Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972). Government restrictions on First Amendment rights must provide clear standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
Limited Public Forum Doctrine
White House press briefings constitute a limited public forum under Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983). In such forums, restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral – Trump's ban fails both tests.
Administrative Law Implications
Beyond pure First Amendment doctrine, the AP ban also violates basic principles of administrative law. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agency actions cannot be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Courts have consistently held that this standard applies to White House press credential decisions.
Precedential Impact
If allowed to stand, Trump's AP ban would create dangerous precedent far beyond the immediate First Amendment violations. It would effectively gut the Press Clause protections established in landmark cases spanning five decades of First Amendment jurisprudence.
The Broader Constitutional Crisis
Trump's attack on AP access represents more than just isolated First Amendment violations – it's part of a broader assault on constitutional democracy itself. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that press freedom is essential to democratic governance, most notably in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), which emphasized the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
Legal Remedies and Likely Outcomes
Based on extensive precedent, courts are likely to:
Issue an immediate temporary restraining order restoring AP access
Find multiple First Amendment violations under strict scrutiny analysis
Establish additional prophylactic protections against future press freedom violations
Constitutional Implications
The ban's constitutional defects are clear under multiple lines of Supreme Court precedent:
Access Rights: Richmond Newspapers and its progeny establish a First Amendment right of access to government proceedings
Content Neutrality: Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) requires content-neutral regulation of speech in public forums
Viewpoint Discrimination: Rosenberger prohibits viewpoint-based restrictions in any forum
Prior Restraint: Near v. Minnesota creates heavy presumption against prior restraints on press
Citations
Blasi, Vincent. "The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory." American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol. 2, 1983
Bollinger, Lee C. "Freedom of the Press and Public Access: Toward a Theory of Partial Regulation of the Mass Media." Michigan Law Review, Vol. 75, 1976
Stone, Geoffrey R. "The Press in the Age of Trump." Columbia Law Review, Vol. 120, 2021
Sullivan, Kathleen M. "First Amendment Law in Crisis." Harvard Law Review, Vol. 136, 2023
Tribe, Laurence H. "The Constitution in Crisis: From Watergate to Trump." Harvard Law Review, Vol. 135, 2018
Should we remind maga that 1 comes before 2 and if they come after the 1st then the second is fair game?