Six Citizens Sue Trump Over White House Press Bans, Citing the Public Right to Know

Six Americans sued President Donald Trump in federal court in New York on Monday, arguing that barring news organizations over their coverage violates the public right to independent reporting about the government under the First Amendment.

The case, Roth v. Trump, was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School brought the case for the six plaintiffs. It names Trump and three aides as defendants: Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Communications Director Steven Cheung and Secret Service Director Sean Curran.

Earlier lawsuits were brought by the outlets that lost access. The plaintiffs here are news readers and viewers who say they depend on White House reporting for their work, and they ask the court to protect the entire press corps.

Who the plaintiffs are

Kenneth Roth is a lecturer at Yale and the former longtime head of Human Rights Watch. Beverly Gage is a history professor at Yale. Benjamin Wittes is editor in chief of Lawfare. Daniel Froomkin is a journalist and the editor of Press Watch. Ethan Young is a student at the University of Pennsylvania and editor in chief of the Daily Pennsylvanian. Peter Schmidt-Nowara teaches social studies and civics at a New York City high school.

Schmidt-Nowara said he wants his students to have access to accurate, independent reporting about their government. Young said he relies on White House reporters to act as his proxy, because he cannot enter those press spaces himself.

What the lawsuit argues

The complaint says the policy punishes outlets for critical reporting and chills the rest of the press corps, because every reporter now has to weigh whether a critical word about the president could cost them their access. It calls the ultimate injury one to the democratic public.

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the policy unconstitutional and to issue a broad injunction that bars viewpoint based retaliation against any news organization covering the White House.

"The First Amendment protects the public's right to know what its government is doing," said Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight Institute. "The White House cannot decide what information Americans receive by punishing critical reporting."

How the White House responded

A White House spokesperson told The Washington Post that outlets it accuses of misinformation can still report from directly outside. A White House official told TheWrap that no person may demand access to the Oval Office. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

The earlier court fight

Trump announced on September 18 that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were banned from the White House. The three outlets sued, and on October 13 a federal judge blocked the exclusion and ordered the administration to maintain their access while that case proceeds. CNN says the White House has since denied it its usual slots in the press pool that covers the president's activities and travel, and the network has threatened further legal action.

The Associated Press was barred last year from the Oval Office, Air Force One and some events after it declined to adopt the name Gulf of America for the Gulf of Mexico.

No court has ruled on the new lawsuit, which opens a second legal front in the same fight, brought by the audience for White House reporting rather than by the reporters.