Tuesday , October 19 2021

The White House says Acosta's newspaper pass will be suspended once the order expires, CNN reports



[ad_1]

White House officials have reportedly sent a letter to CNN, Jim Akosta, indicating that it will suspend his press judgment again a temporary injunction order requiring Acosta's renewal of letters of credit to expire, CNN reported on Sunday night. A 14-day warrant was issued on Friday, and if the judge does not extend it, it will expire at the end of the month.

In a judgment seen as a victory for press freedom, US district judge Timothy J. Kelli, who was appointed by President Trump, ordered the White House to temporarily restore the Akosta newsletter on Friday, while considering the value of the case and the possibility of a permanent order.

He said that the White House was obliged to afford the appropriate Acosta process before it could seize or suspend its approach, and found that the White House decision-making in this case was "so buried in a mystery that the government could not say … ko made a decision. "

But on Sunday night, CNN's Brian Stelter from Trusted sources said in his newsletter that White House officials had sent an Acosta letter stating that his passage would be suspended after an interim order expires.

Stelter did not report the text of the letter or said whether he came only to Acosta or was submitted to the judge in the case. It was not clear if the White House had stated the reasons that would in some way go to the proper procedure in the eyes of the judge or the opportunity for Acosta to respond. Parties are expected to submit status reports on Monday to explain how they would like to proceed.

"The White House continues to violate the First and Fifth Amendment of the Constitution," the CNN said in a statement. "These actions threaten all journalists and news organizations, Jim Acosta and CNN will continue to report on the news of the White House and the President."

CNN and Acosta, the main network correspondent at the White House, sued the White House and the media secretary Sarah Sanders last week after suspending their confidential information to journalists after she was mistreated by Acosta with a White House reporter who tried to extract the microphone From his own hands he questioned the president.

Sanders accused Acostao of "putting his hands on a young woman" when he explained why Acosta was suspended, but Kelly found this allegation "probably incorrect".

In defense of the White House decision to suspend the Akosta newsletter, defense lawyers have argued that this was not a violation of the First Amendment because CNN had many other White House reporters "more than capable of covering the complex of the White House on behalf of CNN" "Acosta continues to" practice her profession and report on the White House "- just not in the White House.

Kelly agreed that access to the basics of the White House was not the first correction. However, he also found that the journalistic "First Amendment to Freedom in Freedom to Transfer the White House Press" was also protected by the guarantees that the Fifth Amendment should have submitted, as Erik Vemple previously reported. In other words, the White House can not simply abolish a journalist's press stand for no reason.

When deciding whether the closure of Acosta was "irreparable damage", the standard for issuing interim injunctions, Kelly pointed to the case of journalist Robert Sherrill, who fought against denying the White House at his press conference in 1977, and also won the law to a fair trial and restoring his passage.

"The first amendments, as recognized in Sherrill, were not posted solely in publications or agencies, which were the freedoms of individual journalists themselves," Kelly said, as an excerpt from Vemple. "For this reason, CNN can still send a new journalist or journalist to the White House, does not guarantee damage to Mr. Acosta any less irreversible … This is a damage that can not be repaired in retrospect … Therefore, in this a very, unusual set of facts and interests, I conclude that the plaintiffs have fulfilled their burden of establishing that there is irreparable damage and that they will continue to appear in absentia [remedy]. "

Ted Boutrous, lawyer CNN and Acosta, told Stelter for "Reliable sources" that if they do not reach an agreement with the White House, they plan to seek a preliminary ban that blocks the White House to suspend Akosta's credentials for a much longer period of time as the case moves forward.

[ad_2]
Source link