Trump’s tweet about banning CNN, MSNBC and Politico raises established First Amendment issues under D.C. Circuit precedent, but the practical concern is his effort to shape reality by excluding outlets that report facts he dislikes.
The deeper problem is political: the president seeking to silence or marginalize outlets that report unfavorably, which cannot erase their reporting.
Labeling critical coverage as "fake" and denying access aims to persuade supporters to reject independent facts rather than to change what is reported.
Trump, and others in his administration like Hegseth and FCC chair Brendan Carr, have tried desperately to silence or chill speech that fails to please and support Trump's claims of greatness. As Eugene Volokh explains, there are things Trump can do and things he cannot. When the White House opens its facilities to the press generally, as it does in the Brady Briefing Room, it cannot exclude journalists based on viewpoint.
Like a corollary to Dick the Butcher, the real problem is that Trump wants his reality to become reality, and that won't happen as long as there is a functional media to give us the facts. He needs to be the focus of attention at all times for all things. He never would have thrown fake news CNN out of the White House.
It's why he gets his news through Natalie Harp, who feeds him a stream of news that flatters him and reinforces his preferred reality where he is loved and admired, even if it's only by a small fraction of sycophants for whom he can do no wrong. This is not to say that legacy media is invariably accurate and unbiased. It can be wrong, and it can reflect deep bias.
Unwise policies are not always unlawful policies.
The precedents don't support what the Democrats want to do, which would be an assault on the separation of powers.
Turns out you can't make career applicants write an essay praising the president's executive orders. The post Trump’s Civil Service Loyalty Test Just Hit A Constitutional Road Bump appeared first on Above the Law .
At Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene picked up on a Connecticut decision addressing an issue that has grown increasingly prominent, as well as lucrative, under the current administration: Pardons. Three things are indisputable about the plaintiff in DeBarros v. Pedbereznak. On October 13, 1996, the plaintiff shot Jermaine Lewi
When a trial ends with a hung jury, the law allows the case to be retried before a new jury. That’s the law, and it should be clear that any claim to the contrary is not the law. At least not yet. The discharge of a deadlocked jury follows one of two events. The first […]
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.