Rob McKenna: Does CNN’s Jim Acosta have a case against the White House?

UPDATE: Judge orders White House to return Acosta’s press credentials.

A federal judge ruled that CNN Reporter Jim Acosta suffered irreparable harm when the White House banned him from press meetings. The judge ordered the Trump administration to return media access to Acosta Friday.

The Associated Press reports:

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, an appointee of President Donald Trump, announced his decision following a hearing. The judge said Acosta’s credentials would be returned immediately and reactivated to allow him access to the White House.

…

The judge said the government could not say who initially decided to revoke Acosta’s hard pass. The White House had spelled out its reasons for revoking his credentials in a tweet from White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and in a statement after CNN filed its lawsuit. But the judge said those “belated efforts were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.”

The judge has not made a final ruling in the case. But he said that Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated when the press pass was revoked.

Original story:

Reporter Jim Acosta controversially had his White House press pass revoked, and now CNN is taking the White House to court. Do Acosta and CNN have a solid case, though?

RELATED: Expert: Acosta video distributed by White House was doctored
RELATED: White House bans CNN reporter after confrontation with Trump

Acosta has long drawn the ire of the Trump administration, culminating in a showdown at a recent press conference, where the reporter refused to cede the floor. The president labeled Acosta “a rude, terrible person” in the contentious exchange.

Later, Acosta showed up at the White House only to find out his press credentials had been revoked. CNN soon filed a lawsuit, and now both sides await a decision from a judge, whose decision will likely come down Friday.

Former Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna sat down with KIRO Radio’s Dave Ross to talk over the case, as well as the implications on both sides.

“There’s clearly First Amendment protection for news gathering that requires access to the White House press facilities,” said McKenna.

Acosta was denied a “hard pass,” a pass that requires reporters to apply for permission to cover press events as they come up. Typically, it’s valid for two years at a time and can be renewed regularly.

“The lawsuit filed by CNN argues that the hard pass is essential because it allows immediate access to White House grounds and White House press offices, so a reporter ‘can react to fast-developing, important news stories,'” described McKenna, quoting the network’s lawsuit.

In addition to a First Amendment violation, CNN is arguing Acosta’s Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated as well, since the reporter alleges he didn’t receive any sort of direct notice or warning.

The judge presiding over the case pressed the Justice Department’s lawyer on whether he thought it was legal for the White House to revoke access to news organizations whose reporting it disagreed with. “As a matter of law… yes,” he responded, per a CNN report.

“So, is having to go through extra hurdles to get in and cover the White House a First Amendment violation, and are the reasons (the White House is) citing… adequate?” asked McKenna.

We’ll soon find out.

RELATED: Rob McKenna on the political battlefield around the Kavanaugh decision

Follow @http://twitter.com/Mynorthwest