Archives: By Topic Select a Topic 113th Congress 114th Congress 1267 terrorist sanctions 1997 Mine Ban Treaty 2001 AUMF 2002 AUMF 2016 Presidential Electio 9\/11 Commission Review Aamer v. Obama Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud Abdullah al-Shami Abu Ghaith Abu Ghraib Abu Khattala Abu Omar Abu Wa'el Dhiab Abu Zubaydah v. Poland Accountability ACLU ACLU v. CIA ACLU v. Clapper ACLU v. DOJ act of state Adam Schiff Additional protocol I Adnan Syed Adobe Afghanistan Africa African Commission on Hum African Court of Human an African Court of Justice African Union African Union Mission in African Union Regional Ta Aggression Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi Ahmed Ghailani Ahmed Godane Ahmed Warsame Airstrikes Ajam v. Butler Akbar Akhtar Muhammad Mansur Al Bahlul IV Symposium Al Qaeda Al Shabaab Al Shumrani Al-Bahlul al-Iraqi Al-Janko v. Gates Al-Libi Al-Maqaleh v. Hagel Al-Nashiri Al-Nashiri v. Poland Al-Shimari v Caci et al. Al-Skeini v. United Kingd Al-Zahrani v. Rodriguez Alexander Litvinenko Algeria Ali v. Obama Alien Tort Statute All Writs Act Ambassador Robert Ford Ambassador Stephen Rapp Amends Amerada Hess American Law Institute American Samoa American Society of Inter Americans Amicus Brief amnesty Amnesty International Amos Guiora and Ibrahim al-Qosi Andrew Kleinfeld Andy Wright Angela Merkel Anonymity Ansar Dine Anthony Kennedy Anti-Muslim discriminatio Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) Anti-Torture Amendment Antonin Scalia Anwar al-Awlaki AP I AP II APA Appellate Jurisdiction Apple AQAP AQIM Arab Spring armed attack armed conflict Armed Opposition Groups Arms Control army field manual Artesia Article 51 Article II Article III Ash Carter Ashraf Ghani Aspen Publishers Assad Assassination Ban Associated Forces asylum Atomic Energy Act atrocities prevention Attacks on Cultural Herit Attorney General attribution Auden AUMF AUMFs Australia authorization for the use Automated Searches Automated Weapons Autonomous Weapons Autonomous Weapons System Avril Haines Ba Odah v. Obama back doors Bagram Air Force Base Bankovic v. Belgium Baraawe Barack Obama Barbara Tuchman Barrel Bombs Barton Gellman Bashar al-Assad Bashir Belfast Peace Agreement Belgium Belhaj v. Straw Bemba Ben Emmerson Ben Wittes Benghazi Bernand Kleinman Bill Banks Bimenyimana Biodefense Bioterror Bivens Suit Black Sites Blackwater Blue Ribbon Study Panel o BND Boasberg body cameras Boim v. Holy Land Foundat Boko Haram Bond v. US Book Reviews Books We've Read Bosnia-Herzegovina Botnets Boumediene v. Bush Brad Heath Brazil Brett Kavanaugh Brexit Brian Egan British Library Bruce Ackerman Brussels Attacks BSA bulk collection Burkina Faso Burundi Bush Administration CAAF CALEA California Call for Papers Cambodia Cameron Munter Canada Canadian Security Intelli Canadian Supreme Court Cardozo Law Review Carly Fiorina Carnegie Mellon Universit Castro v. DHS CAT Ceasefire Cell Site Location Inform cell tracking Censorship Center for Civilians in C Center for Constitutional Center for Democracy and Center for National Secur Center for Naval Analysis Central African Republic Central District of Calif cert petitions Cessation of Hostilities Chad Chapter VII Charles Taylor Charleston Church Shootin Charlie Hebdo Charlie Savage Chatham House mini forum Chelsea Manning Chemical Weapons Chilcot Report Chile China Chivalry Chris Jenks Church Commission CIA CIDT CISA Civil Liberties Civil service Civilian Casualties Civilian-Military divide Civilian-Military relatio Claire McCaskill Clapper Clapper v. Amnesty Intern Clarence Thomas Classified Information Clipper Chip Cluster Munitions CMCR collective self-defense Colombia Colvin v. Syria combat troops Comey Commission on the Wartime Committee Against Torture Committee on the Eliminat Common Article 1 Common Article 3 Community Outreach Compliance with Court Ord Complicity Computer Security Inciden Conflict of interest Congress congressional authorizati Congressional Hearing Congressional Hearings Congressional Investigati Congressional Oversight Consolidated Appropriatio Conspiracy Constitution constitutional law Contempt Content Continuous Combat Functio Convention Against Tortur Convention on Cluster Mun Convention on Conventiona Corporate Liability corporations Corruption Council of Europe Council on Foreign Relati Countering Violent Extrem Counterinsurgency counterintelligence Counterterrorism court Court of Appeals for the Court of Military Commiss Courts Martial Couture-Rouleau Covert Action CQ Roll Call crime crime of aggression Crimea Crimes Against Humanity criminal trial Critical Infrastructure Cross-Border Data Request cross-ruffing Cruel cryptography CSIS Cuba Cully Stimson Customary International L CVE CWC Cy Vance Cyber Cyber Bonds Cyber Warfare Cyberattacks Cybersecurity Cybersecurity Act of 2015 Daily News Daily News Roundup Dan Markel Data Data Localization Data Protection Data Sharing David Barron David Ellis David Golove David Hicks David Kaye David Kris David Medine David Miranda David Sentelle David Tatel DC Circuit DC District Court DDoS DEA Deborah Pearlstein Deep Web Defense Directive 2310.01 Defense Select Committee Democracy Democratic Republic of Co Denmark Department of Defense Department of Homeland Se Department of Justice Department of State deradicalization detainee treatment Detention Detention Review Boards development Device Encryption DHS DIA Dianne Feinstein Diarmuid O'Scannlain Diplomacy diplomatic assurances Direct Participation in H Disinformation Dissent Dissent Channel Cable Distinction Division 30 Djibouti DNC DNC Hack DOD DoD Directive 2310.01E DOD Directive 5230.09 DOD Instruction 5230.29 DOJ Domestic Surveillance Dominic Ongwen Donald Trump Dreyer drone court Drone Papers Drones Drones Report due process Duncan Hunter Dustin Heard Dylann Roof Early Edition Ebola ECHR Economic Espionage ECPA ECPA Reform Editors' Picks EDNY Edward Snowden EFF v. DoJ Effective Control Egypt el salvador Electronic Frontier Found Elena Kagan Email Privacy Act Emergency Powers Emoluments Clause Empirical Research Encryption End-to-End Encryption Enemy Belligerents Engines of Liberty EO 12333 EPIC Eric Garner Eric Holder Espionage Act Ethics EU Data Retention Directi Europe European Commission European Convention on Hu European Convention on Na European Court of Human R European Court of Justice European Parliament European Union Evan Liberty event Events evidence Executive Order 12333 Executive Order 13470 Executive Order 13567 Executive Orders Executive Power Executive Privilege extradition Extrajudicial Release Extraordinary African Cha Extraordinary Renditions Extraterritoriality F Facebook FARC Fast & Furious Fatou Bensouda FBI FBI Director FBI v. Apple Featured Federal Communications Co Federal Courts federal program Federal Trade Commission federalism Feminism Ferguson Fifth Amendment Filartiga financing First Amendment FISA FISA Amendments Act of 20 FISA Improvements Act FISA Reform FISC Five Eyes Florence Hartmann FOIA force-feeding Foreign Affairs Foreign Claims Act Foreign Fighters Foreign Law Foreign Policy Foreign Sovereign Immunit foreign sovereign immunit Foreign Surveillance foreign terrorist fighter Foreign Terrorist Organiz Forever War Fourth Amendment Fourth Circuit France Frank Wolf Fred Korematsu Freedom of Association freedom of expression Freedom of the Press FSIA FTC fugitive Gabor Rona Gabriel Schoenfeld Gag Order Garcetti v. Ceballos Gaza GCHQ Gender General Warrants Geneva Conventions genocide Geoff Corn George W. Bush Georgia Gerald Seib Germany Gideon v. Wainwright GJIL Summit Glenn Greenwald Going Dark golden key golden number Google Goran Hadi Government Shutdown Greece Group of Governmental Exp Guantanamo Guardian Guatemala Guest Post Guide to Torture Report Gulf War Guns of August Guns of September Habeas Habre hacking Hae Min Lee Hagel Haiti Hamdan Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Hamid Karzai Handschu Agreement Harold Koh Harvard Law Review Harvard Law School Hassan v. City of New Yor Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatim v. Obama Heikkila v. Barber Helms Amendment Hernandez v. United State Hezbollah Hicks High commissioner for hum High-Value Detainee Inter Hillary Clinton Hoffman report Holder v. Humanitarian La Holidays Holocaust Holy See Hossam Bahgat Hostage Act Hostile Intent House Armed Forces Commit House Committee on Foreig House Demolitions House Judiciary House lawsuit House Permanent Select Co House Un-American Activit HPSCI HTTPS Huawei Human Right Law human rights Human Rights Committee Human Rights Council Human Rights First Human Rights Law Human Rights Watch Human Shields human trafficking Humanitarian Intervention Humanitarian Law Humanitarian relief opera Hussain v. Obama Hybrid Justice IACHR Ibrahim v. DHS Ibrahim v. US ICC ICCPR ICRAC ICRC ictr ICTY IDF IHL IHR immigration Imminent Threat Immunity immunity for official act Imran Khan Incendiary Weapons India individual self-defense Information Sharing inhuman and degrading tre injury in fact INS v. St. Cyr Inspector General Insular Cases Insurance Intelligence activities Intelligence and Security intelligence community Intelligence Community Di Intelligence Reform International Arm International Armed Confl International Convention international court International Court of Ju International Courts International Criminal Co International Criminal La International Law International Law Commiss International Right to En International Right to Pr internet Internet freedom Internet of Things Interrogation Investigatory Powers Bill Investigatory Powers Trib Iqbal Iran Iran Negotiations Act Iran Nuclear Agreement Re Iran nuclear deal Iran nuclear negotiations Iran Nuclear Negotiations Iraq Iraqi Kurdistan Irek Hamidullan Ireland ISAF ISIL ISIL AUMF Islam Islamic Islamic State Israel Italy Jack Goldsmith James Clapper James Comey James Foley James Risen Jamie Orenstein Jamshid Muhtorov Janice Rogers Brown Jason Smith Jean Pierre Bemba Jeffrey Brand Jeh Johnson Jennifer Granick Jeremy Ridgeway Jerry Brown Jim Sensenbrenner Joe Biden John Bellinger John Brennan John Gleeson John Kerry John McCain John Reed John Walker Lindh John Yoo Joint Committee on Human joint criminal enterprise Jon Cornyn Jonathan Horowitz Jones v. UK Jordan Joseph McCarthy Joshua Arap Sang Journalist journalists JSOC Judge Bates Judge Raymond Randolph Judicial Appointments Judicial Review Judith Rogers Junaid Hussain Jus ad Bellum jus cogens violations jus in bello Just Security Just Security anniversary Just Security Candidates Just Security interns Just Security internship Just security jobs Just War Justice Against Sponsors Justin Raimondo Karen Greenberg Karen LeCraft Henderson Katz v. United States Kazemi v. Iran Keith Alexander Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martin Kenneth Dahl Kenya Kevin Heller Khadr Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Khouzam Killer Robots Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Pet Kiyemba v. Obama Klayman v. Obama Korean landmines Korematsu Korematsu v. United State Kristen Gillibrand KSM Kunduz Kyrgyzstan Laird vs Tatum Lakhdar Brahimi landmines Latif v. Holder Laurence Silberman Lavabit Law enforcement Law Enforcement Hacking Law of Armed Conflict Law of War Manual Law of War Manual Forum Law of War Manual. ICRC Lawfare Lawful Hacking Laws of War Leak Investigations Leaks Lebanon Legal Adviser Legal Adviser, DoS legal offices Legal Services Corp. v. V Letters to the Editor Lewis Kaplan Lex Specialis LGBT Libertarianism Libya Limburg Lindsey Graham Lithuania Livestream Logan Act Lord Peter Goldsmith Lords Resistance Army LTTE Luban Lujan v. Defenders of Wil Luther v. Borden Mac Thornberry Magistrate Judges Maher Arar Mahmoud Abbas Majid Khan Mali Manmohan Singh Mar-a-Lago Marco Rubio Marcy Wheeler Margo Brodie Marine Corps Mark Martins Mark VIsger Marketplace of Ideas Marne Marsha Berzon Martin Luther King Jr. Marty Lederman Material Support Matt Blaze Matthew Waxman Mauritania Mavi Marmara MCA McCain-Feinstein Amendmen McCarthyism McClatchy Mdecins Sans Frontire Media Media Shield Law Medical Personnel membership Memorial Day Mercenaries Merrick Garland Meshal v. Higgenbotham Metadata Mexico Michael Brown Michael Flynn Michael Ratner Michael Weiss Michel Foucault Microsoft Microsoft v. DOJ Microsoft Warrants Case Middle East midterm elections midterms Migrant migration Mike Rogers Military Military aid Military Commissions Military Extraterritorial Military Justice Review G military justice system Military Objective Minimization Procedures Ministry of Defense v. Ra Mitch McConnell MLAT Mohamed v. Jeppesen Datap Mohammed v. MOD Monday Reflection Money Monsanto Montreaux Document Mootness Mosaic Theory Mosul Munitions murder Muslim ban Muslim Brotherhood Mustafa al-Shamiri Mutual Legal Assistance namibia narco-trafficking Nasr v. Italy Nathalie Weizmann National Archives National Institute of Sta national security National Security Council National Security Lawyeri National Security Letters NATO Nawaz Sharif NCIS NCTC NDAA NDU Speech negotiations Network Investigative Tec New York Times New York Times v. DOJ Nicholas Lewin Nicholas Merrill Nicholas Slatten Niger Nigeria No-Fly List Non-international Armed C non-refoulement non-self-executing treati Nonproliferation Treaty Noor Uthman Muhammed Norms Watch North Korea Northern Ireland Notice NSA NSA Reform NSLs Nuclear Nuclear Weapons Nuremberg NYPD Obama administration occupation October Office of Legal Counsel Office of the Director of official act immunity OLC Drone Memo Oman Omar al-Bashir Omar Khadr Oona Hathaway Operation Operation Barkhane Operation Inherent Resolv Operation Protective Edge Operation Storm of Resolv Opinion Poll OPM Organization for Security Organization for the Proh Orin Kerr Osama bin Laden OTP Strategic Plan Ottawa Convention Ottawa shootings Oversight Oversight v. Holder Pakistan Palestine Palmer Raids Panetta Panetta Review Paris Attacks Paris Climate Accord parli Particularity Partition Parwan Patrick Leahy Patrio Patriot Act Paul Slough Paul Wolfson PCLOB Peace Talks Peacekeeping Pen Registers Pentagon Pentagon Papers perfidy Periodic Review Boards Periodic Review Boards (P persecution Peter Burke Peter Margulies Peter Raven-Hansen Philippines Pinochet Plea Agreement PMC PNSDA Poland Police militarization political question doctri Posse Comitatus Power Wars Symposium PPD-28 PPD-30 PPG PRB Pre-publication Review Pr President Obama President's NDU Spee President's Review G Presidential Campaign 201 Presidential Policy Guida Presidential Powers Presidential Review Board Presidents Day PRISM Privacy Private Military and Secu private military contract proportionality protected persons Public Surveys Q+A Qualified Immunity Queen's Speech R2P Rachel Kleinfeld racial discrimination Radovan Karadi Ramzi Bin al-Shibh Rand Paul Raner Collins Ranger School Ransomware rape Rasul v. Bush Ray Mabus Raza v. City of New York Readers' Guide Reagan Real Estate Recusal Red Scare reddit Reengagement Assessment refugee Refugee Crisis Religion remedies Rendition Rep. Adam Schiff Republic of Korea Resolution 2170 Responsibility to Protect Restis Restis v. United Against Rewards for Justice Reyaad Khan Rhetoric Richard Burr Richard Leon Right to Be Forgotten Right to Life Right to Privacy Right to Truth Riley v. California Robert Gates Robert H. Jackson Robert Litt Robert Sack Rodriguez v. Swartz Rogue Justice Rome Statute Ron Wyden Roof Knocking Rosenberg vs Pasha Rothstein v. UBS AG Roy Cohn Royce Lamberth Rule 41 Rules of Engagement Rumsfeld v. Padilla Russia Rwanda Ryan Vogel Saddam Hussein SAFE Act of 2015 Safe Harbor safe zones Sahel Salahi Saleh v. Titan Corp Salim v. Mitchell Samantar v. Yousuf San Bernardino Shooting sanctions Sarah Cleveland Sarah Koenig SASC Saudi Arabia Schengen Zone Schlesinger v. Councilman Schrems Scotland Scott Shane SCOTUS SDNY Second Circuit Secrecy Secret Law Secret Service Section 215 Section 702 Security security agreement Security Assistance security clearance self-defense Senate Senate Armed Services Com Senate Foreign Relations Senate HSGAC Senate Intelligence Commi Senate Judiciary Committe Senegal Separation of powers Serdar Mohammed v. SSD Serial Service Providers Sexual Assault Sexual Violence Seymour Hersh SFRC SGBV Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl Sharia shooting Siege Warfare signals collection Silicon Valley Sir John Chilcot SJC Slahi slavery Smith v. Maryland Smith v. Obama Snooper's Charter Snowden Snowden Treaty social Social Media Solicitor General Somalia Sonia Sotomayor Sony South Africa South Ossetia South Sudan Special Forces special rapporteur Spying Sri Lanka SSCI SSCI Report SSCI Torture Report standing Stanley McChrystal Starvation state immunity State of the Union State Responsibility state secrets state secrets privilege State v. Andrews Statehood Staten Island Status of Forces Agreemen status-based immunity statute of limitations StellarWind Stephen Williams Steve Dycus Stimson Center StingRays Stored Communications Act Sudan Sunshine Week superior responsibility Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada Surveillance Suspension Clause Sustainable Development G Sweden Syria Syrian opposition Syrian refugees Szabo v. Hungary TACT 2000 Tadic Tahir-ul-Qadri Taliban Taliban Sources Project Tallinn Manual target Targeted Killing Targeting Decisions Taylor v. KBR Teaching Technology Ted Cruz term limits terrorism terrorist Terrorist Expatriation Ac Third Circuit Thomas Ambro Thomas Griffith Thomas Lubanga Dyilo Tim Kaine Tim Starks Title III Tony Blair Tor Tor Browser torture Torture Report trafficking transitional justice Transparency transparency reports Treasury Department Treaties Treaty Implementation Treaty Law Trump Trump Administration Trump Administrations truth commission Tuaua Tunisia Turkey Turkmen Turkmenv.Hasty Turner v. Safley Tweet Roll Twitter UANI UDHR Uganda Uhuru Kenyatta Uighurs UK UK Elections UK High Court UK Parliament UK Supreme Court UK Terrorism Act 2000 Ukraine Umm Sayyaf UN Assistance Mission in UN Charter UN High Commissioner for UN High Commissioner on H UN Human Rights Committee UN Security Council Uniform Code of Military United Kingdom United Nations United Nations General As United Nations Human Righ United Nations Human Righ United States ex rel. Acc United States v. Graham United States v. Moalin Universal Declaration of Universal Jurisdiction Universal Periodic Review Unlawful Combatants UNSC UNSC Resolution 1441 UNSC Resolution 2178 UNSC Resolution 2249 unwilling or unable US AID US Army US Holocaust Museum and M US v. al-Darbi US v. al-Shibh US v. Garcia US v. Khadr US v. Mehanna US v. Mohammed US v. Warshak USA Freedom USA Freedom Act Use of Force USS Cole Vance v. Terrazas Verdugo-Urquidez Veterans Veterans Day Veto Victor Restis Video Vietnam Vladimir Putin Vojislav eelj voluntary manslaughter Vulnerabilities Equities war War Crimes War Crimes Act war memorial War on Drugs War on Terror War Powers War Powers Resolution Warafi warrant canary Warsame Wartime Contracts Washington Post Wassenaar Arrangement Waziristan weapons Weapons of Mass Destructi Weekly Recap West Bank Westgate WhatsApp Whistleblowing White House Wikimedia v. NSA William Bradford William Ruto William Samoei Ruto Wiretap Women Women in combat Women's Rights Wong Kim Ark Yahoo Year End 2015 Year End 2016 Yemen Yezidis Yugoslavia Zakharov v. Russia Zehalf-Bibeau Zero-Day Vulnerabilities Zimbabwe Zivotofsky v. Clinton Zivotofsky v. Kerry <\/p>\n
On Friday, the White House barred specific news organizations from attending a press briefing by spokesman Sean Spicer. Among the organizations excluded from the question and answer session were news outlets that President Donald Trump has singled out for criticismincluding Buzzfeed, CNN, the New York Times, and Politico. The White House Correspondents Association stated that its board is protesting strongly against the action. <\/p>\n
Many in the media have asked whether the White House actions were unconstitutional. I asked some of the most highly respected First Amendmentlaw experts across the country. Heres what they said. <\/p>\n
Robert Corn-Revere, Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP: <\/p>\n
Whether or not a White House press briefing is a public forum, the selective exclusion of certain news organizations or reporters as retaliation for unfavorable news coverage or simply because the Administration does not like the tone of their coverage raises a significant First Amendment problem. While there are not a lot of cases in this area perhaps because most responsible public officials know better than to engage in such tactics they have held that arbitrary denials of press access are unconstitutional. Perhaps more to the point, such actions are deeply offensive to American values generally, and to the spirit of the First Amendment specifically. And that is true regardless whether a Republican or Democratic administration does it. <\/p>\n
Lucy Dalglish, Dean of the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland: <\/p>\n
All presidents have tangled with the press in one way or another. They frequently have blackballed one or more newsrooms from interviews with the president. But once they start excluding credentialed White House correspondents from briefings based on their journalism, they have entered new and forbidden territory. <\/p>\n
Arthur Eisenberg, Legal Director, New York Civil Liberties Union: <\/p>\n
The Supreme Court has long recognized that in administering access to apublic forum, or even alimited forum, government may not privilege some and disadvantage others on the basis of ideological viewpoints. Writing for the Court in Police Department v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92,96 (1972), Justice Thurgood Marshall observed: The government may not grant the use of aforum to people it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. In explaining this proposition, Justice Marshall insisted that [t]here is an equality of status in the field of ideas and government must afford all points of view an equal opportunity to be heard. The Court has further recognized that the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak but the right toreceive information and to engage in the free exchange of ideas. <\/p>\n
A presidential press briefing is notapublic forum. The briefing is clearlynot open to all members of the public. But, such an event can comfortably be understood as alimited forum where reporters fromsignificant news outletsare invited as participants.In conferring access to this forum, government officialsmay limit the number of participants to ensure against overcrowding of the room where the event is being held. The officials might also create categorical criteria for exclusion (such as news outlets that publish on a daily basis or whose readership or viewing audience exceeds a certain number). They may even confine the discussion to certain topics. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985). But what the government officials cannot do, consistent with the First Amendment, is to grant or deny access to news agencies or reporters based upon the views expressed by those individuals or publications. To do so, violates aneutrality principle that is basic to the First Amendment. <\/p>\n
The Courts adherence to this prohibition against viewpoint discrimination applies even beyond circumstances where government is regulating access to a forum and even when government officials attempt to mask their motives behind laws that appear to be facially neutral. Grosjean v. American Press Company, 297 U.S. 233 (1936) involved a Louisiana tax that singled out for special adverse treatment the newspapers in the State with the largest circulation. The tax did not identify the newspapers by name. It was imposed simply upon newspapers whose circulation exceeded 20,000. But, by no coincidence, these were the newspapers that were most critical of Louisianas governor, Huey Long. The Court looked behind the facial neutrality of the statute, finding the tax unconstitutional upon the ground that it had been enacted for the purpose of penalizing the publishers of a . . . selected group of newspapers. Here, again, the First Amendment was violated by the efforts of government officials to penalize expressive enterprises on the basis of viewpoint. <\/p>\n
Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University: <\/p>\n
The First Amendment bars the press secretary from ejecting media organizations from briefings they would otherwise be entitled to attend simply because he doesnt like their reporting. In addition, the First and Fifth Amendments entitle media organizations that are denied access to those briefings to timely notice and an opportunity to contest their exclusions. The D.C. Circuit held as much in Sherrill v. Knight and lower courts in other circuits have reached essentially the same conclusion. Based on the facts asIunderstand them, the press secretarys actions werent defensible under these standards. He replaced a scheduled on-camera briefing that all major news organizations were scheduled to attend with an off-camera briefing that pointedly excluded organizations whose coverage President Trump had previously criticized. (Trump called Buzzfeed a failing pile of garbage, for example, after it reported on unverified allegations that Russia had compiled compromising information about him.) While excluding those disfavored media organizations, the press secretary included the days pool reporters as well as a sizable contingent of right-leaning outlets whose coverage the administrationfinds more congenial. If these are indeed the facts, as they seem to be, the press secretarys actions violated the First and Fifth Amendments. <\/p>\n
Dawn Johnsen, Walter W. Foskett Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law and served as Acting Assistant Attorney General heading the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice: <\/p>\n
The Trump administrations treatment of the press, including its own false statements to the press, presents its greatest threat to our constitutional order thus far. In evaluating the constitutionality of executive action we must keep in mind that the test is not simply what a court might rule unconstitutional. In our system, much of what the president does of questionable legality will not be reviewed by the courts, or will be reviewed only under a very deferential standard. Thus, other checks are essential: by Congress, by presidential legal advisors and, as the Supreme Court often has emphasized, by a free and unrestrained press. <\/p>\n
Lee Levine, partner in the media law firm Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz and author of the treatise, Newsgathering and the Law: <\/p>\n
The courts have made it reasonably clear that there is a line between simply declining to grant an interview request made by a disfavored reporter, on the one hand, and the purposeful exclusion of a credentialed news organization from a White House press briefing, on the other. The latter violates the First Amendment especially where, as in this case, the exclusion is based on a public officials dissatisfaction with the content of the news coverage hes received. From a purely litigation perspective, moreover, the Presidents and his Press Secretarys own words provide ample evidence that the decision was both content and viewpoint based. If weve learned nothing else about what the First Amendment forbids in the last fifty plus years, we know that it abhors punitive actions taken by government officials in an effort to punish critics of their official conduct, except in the cause of an extraordinarily compelling public interest. To say the least, no such interest supports this. <\/p>\n
Burt Neuborne, Norman Dorsen Professor of Civil Liberties, New York University School of Law: <\/p>\n
President Trumps carefully calculated bashing of the press is a leaf out of the Weimar playbook. Once a would-be tyrant succeeds in de-legitimating the independent private press, the way is open to evolving a substitute form of mass communication dominated by the state. But, while such sustained press-bashing by the President poses enormous risks to the information ecosystem needed to support democracy, it does not necessarily violate the First Amendment. To the extent Presidential press-bashing takes the form of speech calling the independent press enemies of the people, and singling out disfavored press organs, like CNN or The New York Times, for special criticism, the Presidents ugly words are protected by, not violative of, the First Amendment. On the other hand, if the President unleashed force or discriminatory law enforcement against disfavored critics, whether or not they are members of the press, that would clearly violate the First Amendment. In my opinion, the exclusion of a disfavored cable network and a hostile newspaper from a White House press briefing held in the Press Secretarys office is probably not a First Amendment violation. As I understand it, the information at the briefing was quickly made available to the excluded organs, rendering the exclusions more symbolic than real. The exclusions were petty, foolish, and, if repeated on a larger scale, dangerous; but, to me, they seemed more a calculated snub; an expression of distaste, rather than an act of censorship. Its hard for me to view a press briefing in a private office as a limited public forum triggering equal access rights when the information at issue was immediately available to the excluded press organs. The response, and there should be a response, should be a show of solidarity by the press. If the White House insists on treating press briefings as pool events, the press should send only the minimum pool representatives. That would end the process immediately. <\/p>\n
David Schulz, partner in the media law firm Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, and Director, Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic, Yale Law School: <\/p>\n
The actions on Friday restricting certain news organizations from a briefing by the White House Press Secretary raise significant concerns. The D.C. Circuit almost forty years ago held in no uncertain terms that access to White House press facilities cannot be arbitrarily denied to credentialed reporters. <\/p>\n
Courts routinely have held that government press briefings are the type of public forum to which press access may never be restricted based on objections to the content of a journalists reporting. The Supreme Court itself has made clear that, above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. Fridays actions appear to be a highly dangerous and improper effort to do just that. <\/p>\n
Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School: <\/p>\n
Trumps most recent outrage has been to exclude CNN, The New York Times, and a few other media outlets that the President wants to cut off from inner sources of information and chooses to stigmatize with the fake news label that most appropriately fits what he and his subordinates incessantly propound. <\/p>\n
The immediate temptation is to denounce that outrage as a clear violation of the First Amendments Free Speech and Free Press Clauses. But it isnt clear to me that those rightly distressed by these presidential actions should hang their hats entirely on the threat of taking the President to court in the name of the Constitution. <\/p>\n
Of course Trumps petulant move, which I trust will not long outlast the adverse public reaction it has already begun to generate, is immature and borders on the dictatorial. Of course it is just the kind of step would-be autocrats typically take before adopting more direct and Draconian forms of press censorship. As Churchill once said, A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny. <\/p>\n
Today the press coverage of the White House is a vital part of that free press. Unsurprisingly, therefore, a number of federal district court and circuit court opinions identify White House press briefings and news availabilities at the offices of government officials as public forums that cannot be confined to ideologically sympathetic reporters and commentators. <\/p>\n
But it is not entirely clear that the Supreme Court as currently composed, or with Judge Gorsuch as a ninth justice, would reach that conclusion. It might instead hold that the government platform a president and his team create for the press pool, or for the gaggle of reporters who surround the pool, can be treated by the president as an extension of the White House public relations operation, somewhere between the Voice of the White House and Lafayette Park. Indeed, with increasing frequency, the current Court has permitted what many regard as the censorship of disfavored views by framing the expression involved as a species of government speech, a dangerously malleable category that threatens to swallow First Amendment doctrines otherwise conducive to the free and open exchange of competing views. <\/p>\n
To rest ones opposition to what Trump has done on a foundation this manipulable seems to me a legal and strategic blunder. This president violates the U.S. Constitution so frequently, so deeply, and so demonstrably, that one risks diluting the constitutional currency by pulling out the big see you in court guns each time he trashes tradition and violates the broad principles on which our representative democracy rests. <\/p>\n
Video:On C-Span, December 16, 2016, Sean Spicer tells Politico reporter that government banning specific reporters or media outlets is what a dictatorship does. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Tuesday, February 28 <\/p>\n
10:00am SenateCommittee on Foreign Relations Iraq After Mosul(here) <\/p>\n
10:00am House Homeland SecurityCommittee The Future of Counterterrorism: Addressing the Evolving Threat to Domestic Security(here) <\/p>\n
2:00pm SenateCommittee on Intelligence Open Hearing(here) <\/p>\n
2:00pm House Foreign Affairs Committee Checking Chinas Maritime Push(here) <\/p>\n
2:00pm House Foreign Affairs Committee Issues and Opportunity in the Western Hemisphere(here) <\/p>\n
2:00pm House Homeland SecurityCommittee The Future of FEMA: Recommendations of Former Administrators(here) <\/p>\n
3:30pm HouseCommittee on Armed Services Department of Defense Inspector General Report Investigation on Allegations Relating to USCENTCOM Intelligence Products(here) <\/p>\n
4:00pm SenateCommittee on Intelligence ClosedHearing(here) <\/p>\n
Wednesday, March1 <\/p>\n
10:00am SenateCommittee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Effects of Border Insecurity and Lax Immigration Enforcement on American Communities(here) <\/p>\n
10:00am House JudiciaryCommittee Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Closed panel preceding open panel(here) <\/p>\n
10:00am HouseCommittee on Armed Services Cyber Warfare in the 21st Century(here) <\/p>\n
10:15am SenateCommittee on Armed Services Global Counterterrorism Closed (here) <\/p>\n
2:00pm House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform VA: Path to Reform(here) <\/p>\n
3:30pm HouseCommittee on Armed Services US Ground Force Capability and Modernization Challenges in Eastern Europe(here) <\/p>\n
TBD SenateJudiciaryCommittee Business Meeting (incl. continue <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Continue reading here: <\/p>\n
9 Top First Amendment Experts React to White House Press Briefing Ban on CNN, NYT, others - Just Security<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Archives: By Topic Select a Topic 113th Congress 114th Congress 1267 terrorist sanctions 1997 Mine Ban Treaty 2001 AUMF 2002 AUMF 2016 Presidential Electio 9\/11 Commission Review Aamer v. Obama Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud Abdullah al-Shami Abu Ghaith Abu Ghraib Abu Khattala Abu Omar Abu Wa'el Dhiab Abu Zubaydah v. Poland Accountability ACLU ACLU v. Continue reading