HTownAg98 said:

---

It's irrelevant. That's not why they sued. They sued because Trump got big mad that the AP wouldn't call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and banned them from certain spaces. That's viewpoint discrimination and that's not allowed.

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

You really don't know how the press gets access in limited spaces, do you. Read the background in the opinion, it explains how this was traditionally done.

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

this will certainly be overturned on appeal

nowhere in the constitution does it say all press outlets must have access to the white press room

---

Name five justices on SCOTUS that would overturn this. I'll give you Alito and Thomas. Name the other three.

It certainly doesn't say that all press outlets get access to the White House press room, but that's not what they sued over.
I'll encourage you to read the opinion. It's not written in hard to comprehend legalese.

---

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's irrelevant. That's not why they sued. They sued because Trump got big mad that the AP wouldn't call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and banned them from certain spaces. That's viewpoint discrimination and that's not allowed.

---

doesn't matter that's why it will be overturned among other reasons like previous admins have done the same. .

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I'm still in real estate, I just have a fascination with the first amendment and the law associated with it.

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I'm still in real estate, I just have a fascination with the first amendment and the law associated with it.

---

techno-ag said:

---

Soon to be overruled just like all the others.

---

We fixed the keg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I'm still in real estate, I just have a fascination with the first amendment and the law associated with it.

---

Still don't see how this is where the line is drawn....He is not preventing them from writing whatever they want, he is just limited direct access which is a privilege, not a right. Even in the ruling the judge states that the court cannot direct who he has to give 1 on 1 interviews to, etc.

It doesn't make sense how you can say, the president can choose who gets called on to ask him a question, or who gets invited to go for a walk-n-talk, but those aren't breaches of the first amendment. Only getting in the East Wing is.

---

2/ https://t.co/G3IurFWWXM ACLU has its petition here. The complaint is a "putative class action" lawsuit, in other words putative = "a wanna be" class action suit.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 9, 2025

4/ It appears a courtlistener glitch that combined it with another case. It is proper on Pacer but still sealed. Hearing tomorrow with Court already entering order that they can't be transferred out of New York. pic.twitter.com/cp8GzoeQoB

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 9, 2025

6/6 Assigned to Clinton appointee Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 9, 2025

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Putative is what it is prior to certification. This will never be a class. Not sufficient commonality.

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Putative is what it is prior to certification. This will never be a class. Not sufficient commonality.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I never did class action suits. But unless something very dramatic has changed, no such thing as a "putative" class. Where in the hell did that come from?

Oy vey!

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's irrelevant. That's not why they sued. They sued because Trump got big mad that the AP wouldn't call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and banned them from certain spaces. That's viewpoint discrimination and that's not allowed.

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Not likely. Read the opinion.

---

It's also the least consequential TDS decision imaginable. What is he going to do next, require Trump call on them at least 5 percent of the time?

---

So you didn't read the opinion then. McFadden addressed that.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly
expressing their own views.
No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalistsbe it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhereit cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.

---

---

Trump: We're now going to assign the journalists allowed alphabetically...starting with the letter B.

---

DOJ also says it has been "informed" that El Salvador "has its own legal rationales" for detaining MS-13 members and therefore may not be willing to allow Abrego Garcia (who contests he is an MS-13 member) return to the United. States. https://t.co/WRYt7SSJDn pic.twitter.com/nuvj2wBxbz

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 8, 2025

The risk created by sending in Main Justice attorneys who do not have much experience before District Court judges.

There is a way to respectfully -- and forcefully -- disagree with a hostile district judge.

But if you don't know what you are doing, that judge will brow-beat… https://t.co/RJS6O59vKn

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 8, 2025

BusterAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's irrelevant. That's not why they sued. They sued because Trump got big mad that the AP wouldn't call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and banned them from certain spaces. That's viewpoint discrimination and that's not allowed.

---

So, he can effectively not change his behavior, but change his rhetoric, and accomplish the same thing?

Don't ban the AP for the gulf of Mexico thing. Just don't invite them to anything?

---

BusterAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Not likely. Read the opinion.

---

It's also the least consequential TDS decision imaginable. What is he going to do next, require Trump call on them at least 5 percent of the time?

---

So you didn't read the opinion then. McFadden addressed that.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly
expressing their own views.
No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalistsbe it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhereit cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.

---

---

Trump: We're now going to assign the journalists allowed alphabetically...starting with the letter B.

---

No, go ahead and start with A. Give the AP an exclusive 15 minute interview where Trump just stares at the AP silently, not answering any questions, and then, when pressed, claim "I don't have to answer your questions. I prefer to sit here, silently judging you."

---

will25u said:

---

DOJ also says it has been "informed" that El Salvador "has its own legal rationales" for detaining MS-13 members and therefore may not be willing to allow Abrego Garcia (who contests he is an MS-13 member) return to the United. States. https://t.co/WRYt7SSJDn pic.twitter.com/nuvj2wBxbz

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 8, 2025

---

Quote:

---

If they had kept their mouth shut and just did it, we wouldn't be here. Unless the AP could prove that that is why they weren't being allowed in.

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

If they had kept their mouth shut and just did it, we wouldn't be here. Unless the AP could prove that that is why they weren't being allowed in.

---

They announced the reason for the dismissal to make a point - and to get others to fall in line.

---

Exactly.

There tends to be confusion with the idea that all habeas is like habeas for a convicted murderer who is challenging violations of his constitutional rights.

The only claims that can be made under the AEA are those you noted. And the burden is preponderance, AND,… https://t.co/n8NuNuFLV5

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 9, 2025

@JayTownAlabama said:

---

It's not much different than a governors warrant process. This can all be done in filings without hearings. It does not remotely resemble a TRO hearing.

1. Is the detained who you think he is?

2. If yes, then is he in the enemy class of those to be removed?

If yes…

Well Bye...

---

@shipwreckedcrew said:

---

Exactly.

There tends to be confusion with the idea that all habeas is like habeas for a convicted murderer who is challenging violations of his constitutional rights.

The only claims that can be made under the AEA are those you noted. And the burden is preponderance, AND, most significant, I suspect the burden MIGHT end up being on the Plaintiff who is challenging the removal, and not the Govt.

I don't think there is even a right to a hearing -- federal habeas petitions for criminal defendants do not require discovery or a hearing.

"Opportunity to be heard" only references the right to file a challenge. The written document satisfies the "being heard" requirement.

---

JUST IN: Trump-appointed judge in Texas blocks removals under the Alien Enemies Act, citing the SCOTUS ruling and the potential for a mistake as revealed in the Abrego Garcia case.

This follows a similar order from NY judge on two other AEA targets https://t.co/h1nrJX53XU pic.twitter.com/OvVSCi0dDv

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 9, 2025

BusterAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's irrelevant. That's not why they sued. They sued because Trump got big mad that the AP wouldn't call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and banned them from certain spaces. That's viewpoint discrimination and that's not allowed.

---

So, he can effectively not change his behavior, but change his rhetoric, and accomplish the same thing?

Don't ban the AP for the gulf of Mexico America thing. Just don't invite them to anything?

---

will25u said:

---

The only reason the AP is at issue is because the White House said that they weren't allowing the AP into those places because they would not call it the Gulf of America.

If they had kept their mouth shut and just did it, we wouldn't be here. Unless the AP could prove that that is why they weren't being allowed in.

In my opinion, the AP/judge is right. The government can't condition things on what a news organization or anyone for that matter says or doesn't say. Seems this is a core 1st amendment violation to me.

But this is just my lay person common sense feeling about this.

---

techno-ag said:

---

will25u said:

---

The only reason the AP is at issue is because the White House said that they weren't allowing the AP into those places because they would not call it the Gulf of America.

If they had kept their mouth shut and just did it, we wouldn't be here. Unless the AP could prove that that is why they weren't being allowed in.

In my opinion, the AP/judge is right. The government can't condition things on what a news organization or anyone for that matter says or doesn't say. Seems this is a core 1st amendment violation to me.

But this is just my lay person common sense feeling about this.

---

The AP has a style guide that is followed by many if not most journalistic publications. They for instance insist on the very racist practice of capitalizing the word "black" to single out people of color. With the style guide refusing to use the proper "Gulf of America" they are showing a clear and willful bias against the President.

---

will25u said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

will25u said:

---

The only reason the AP is at issue is because the White House said that they weren't allowing the AP into those places because they would not call it the Gulf of America.

If they had kept their mouth shut and just did it, we wouldn't be here. Unless the AP could prove that that is why they weren't being allowed in.

In my opinion, the AP/judge is right. The government can't condition things on what a news organization or anyone for that matter says or doesn't say. Seems this is a core 1st amendment violation to me.

But this is just my lay person common sense feeling about this.

---

The AP has a style guide that is followed by many if not most journalistic publications. They for instance insist on the very racist practice of capitalizing the word "black" to single out people of color. With the style guide refusing to use the proper "Gulf of America" they are showing a clear and willful bias against the President.

---

Does not matter. They are allowed to say most anything they want. 1st Amendment was the first RIGHT in the Constitution/Bill of Rights for a reason.

The government cannot take action against them for most anything they would say. But their words can have consequences related to customers/investors/etc.

This is such an easy 1st Amendment issue. I really don't understand why everyone is having trouble understanding it.

I am a huge Trump supporter, and would never give the AP a single cent because they are leftist propaganda. But we should all adhere to the Constitution. It is one of the greatest and most profound document of the greatest FREE Nation in history. Cherish it, because the left wants to shape it to their will.

---