This blogger doesn’t like to play Devil’s advocate or Trump’s advocate (assuming that there is a difference between the two), but he will in this case.

In his blog post Are members of the Press misinterpreting the First Amendment? published on 26 February 2025, this blogger asks if the First Amendment gives any presidential administration the authority to limit who can be in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room.

Now, a federal judge has answered this blogger’s question.

From NBC News, 08 April 2025:

“A federal judge Tuesday called The Associated Press’s exclusion from White House events ‘contrary to the First Amendment’ and ordered the Trump administration to treat the newswire as it would any other media publication.”

The Hill quotes U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden as stating the following in his ruling:

“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 journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere — it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.”

Yeah, this blogger understands Judge McFadden’s reasoning. At the same time, this blogger wonders if the Trump Administration will now decide who is a legitimate journalist and who isn’t.

Once upon a time, it was easy to determine who was a journalist because journalism was limited to print media. That was when print media was the only media in existence. Then came radio programs and television programs. Hence, one could be a journalist without being employed in print media.

Now, thanks to the Internet, one can perform journalism without being an employee of a radio station or a television station. Indeed, this blogger gets all of his news from sources on the Internet.

So, what legal document defines for the U.S. government who is and isn’t a legitimate journalist? What legal document defines for the U.S. government what is and isn’t a legitimate news organization? What legal document defines for the U.S. government what is and isn’t news?

What if we have a case of the Devil or Trump being in the details? What if the judge’s ruling backfires on the Associated Press?

Judge McFadden stayed his injunction until 13 April 2025 in order to give the Trump Administration time to file an appeal.

Suppose that the Trump Administration appeals with the following argument:

“The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room is too small to accomodate all journalists. That Room has only 49 seats in it. In order to comply with the judge’s ruling, the White House must rotate the journalists in the Room. Thus, the Associated Press must be rotated out periodically in order for other journalists to be in the Press Room.”

If the Associated Press is rotated out instead of being banned, and if all journalists are rotated out, then what valid legal argument would the Associated Press have against such a rotation?

Again, this blogger supports Donald Trump no more than he supports the Devil (assuming that there is a difference between the two). Yet, this blogger doesn’t want the U.S. Constitution to be filtered through his or anyone else’s political beliefs.

This blogger doesn’t have the answers to his questions. Perhaps the Reader knows someone who has the answers.