Case Summary and Outcome

A U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction against the government’s decision to bar a major news organization from select White House media events. The new organization had been excluded from press pool availabilities and limited-access briefings after it refused to revise its Stylebook to replace references to the “Gulf of Mexico” with the administration’s preferred term, the “Gulf of America.” The Court held that once the government opens restricted spaces to certain journalists it may not exclude others based on viewpoint, and that the news organization’s exclusion amounted to both impermissible viewpoint discrimination and unlawful retaliation under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Noting that nonpublic forums such as the Oval Office and press briefing rooms require reasonable, viewpoint-neutral access, the Court found that the news organization was likely to succeed on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm without relief. Accordingly, it ordered the government to restore the news organization’s access immediately and kept the injunction in place until further order of the Court.

---

Facts

On January 20, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14172 (“Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness”) which included the renaming of the “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America.” Approximately three weeks later, on February 11, the President’s Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called a meeting with Zeke Miller, Associated Press (AP) Chief Correspondent for the American executive (the White House), and informed him that the AP would be excluded from press-pool events unless it revised its Stylebook to refer to the “Gulf of America” rather than the “Gulf of Mexico.”

Historically, White House press access has been organized into two main tiers. The first tier is the press pool which is a rotating group comprising roughly 1-2% of credentialed White House journalists selected by the private White House Press Correspondents’ Association (WHCA). For over a century, the AP had been guaranteed two permanent pool slots: one for a print reporter and one for a photographer. The second tier is the broader hard-pass press corps, approximately 1,355 credentialed reporters, who undergo a rigorous application process to earn a “hard pass” – a credential granting general access to all White House press facilities between 5:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. These reporters attend daily events by reserving spots (RSVP) in spaces such as the 49-seat James S. Brady Briefing Room and the 180-seat East Room. The press pool attends limited-space gatherings – including the formal working space of the President (the Oval Office) events, Cabinet Room meetings, presidential travels on Air Force One, and occasional briefing at Mar-a-Lago (President Trump’s personal home) – while other designated press areas include “Pebble Beach” on the North Grounds and the South Lawn tarmac of the White House. Until February 2025, the AP consistently enjoyed unfettered access under these longstanding WHCA procedures, covering the President alongside its peers without interference.

On February 13, an AP text journalist was prevented from accessing an East Room press conference despite a confirmed RSVP, while an AP photographer was admitted and competing outlets entered without issue. Consequently, the AP’s text reporting was hindered, as its journalists were forced to wait for the video feed before issuing breaking news alerts, which caused significant delays. Two days later, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich publicly confirmed that the AP’s exclusion was due to its refusal to adopt the new terminology.

Following this, AP hard-pass holders were systematically excluded from pool rotations for Oval Office availabilities, Air Force One flights, and other press-pool-only events and AP journalists were repeatedly denied entry to limited-access events, including East Room press conferences, the Department of Justice’s Great Hall speech, and other major briefings, while peer wire services continued to maintain near-daily access. Foreign AP correspondents occasionally gained entry, but only when traveling as part of visiting dignitaries’ entourages, rather than through standard hard-pass channels.

On February 18, 2025, President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Susan Wiles, in response to AP’s complaints, stated that the AP’s Stylebook had both misused and, at times, weaponized its editorial influence. She directed that references to the “Gulf of America” should be incorporated to respect the authority of the President. On the same day, President Trump publicly criticized the AP’s refusal to adopt the new terminology and confirmed that its access to news conferences would be withheld.

On February 21, 2025 – approximately ten days after the first signs of its exclusion from the press pool – AP filed a lawsuit against the White House Chief of Staff, her Communications Deputy, and the Press Secretary in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The AP sought a preliminary injunction requiring the Government to restore its access for press-pool and limited-access events during the litigation. At an initial hearing on its motion for a temporary restraining order – a short-term emergency measure designed to preserve the status quo until a fuller hearing could be held – the Court denied the relief, noting significant distinctions from prior White House access cases, particularly Sherrill v. Knight, including the fact that the AP’s hard-pass status remained unchanged and that critical questions about the scope and business impact of the exclusions required a full record.

On February 25, 2025, four days after the lawsuit was filed, the White House announced that it would take over the selection of hard-pass holders eligible for press pool access, a responsibility that, for decades, had been held by WHCA not the White House.

To allow for a more developed factual record, the Court ordered expedited briefing on the AP’s motion for a preliminary injunction and authorized each side to present up to two live witnesses. On March 13, 2025, the AP called its two most senior White House hard-pass holders to testify; the Government elected not to present any witnesses. Following the completion of briefing and the evidentiary hearing, the matter was deemed fully ripe for decision.

AP submitted that the White House’s actions violated their rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

---

Decision Overview

Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia delivered the order. The central issue before the Court was whether the Government’s exclusion of the AP from press-pool events and limited-access White House briefings –following the AP’s refusal to adopt the term “Gulf of America” as directed by President Trump – violated the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and retaliating against protected speech.

The AP argued that the Government, under the direction of President Trump, curtailed its access to key media events because the AP refused to update its Stylebook to refer to the “Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America.” The AP contended that this exclusion, particularly from the Oval Office press pool and East Room events, constituted a direct penalty for its editorial viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment, which forbids the Government from imposing burdens on speech because of its content or viewpoint. Although the AP acknowledged that there is no standalone First Amendment right to access highly controlled Government locations like the Oval Office, it argued that by voluntarily opening the Oval Office to select journalists, the Government created a nonpublic forum and that, in such a forum, the government retains broad regulatory authority but must ensure that any restrictions are both reasonable and viewpoint neutral. The AP submitted that its exclusion was explicitly based on its viewpoint, as confirmed by government officials’ statements linking their access decisions to the AP’s refusal to adopt the new Gulf terminology. It further argued that the activities of AP journalists in the Oval Office – which include communicating real-time observations and providing immediate reports – constitute expressive conduct warranting First Amendment protection. The AP emphasized that even noncommunicative conduct restrictions must satisfy the standards of reasonableness and viewpoint neutrality, citing the case of Price v. Garland,  to support the proposition that restrictions cannot be imposed in a manner that punishes specific editorial choices.

Beyond claims of viewpoint discrimination, the AP also argued that the Government’s conduct amounted to unlawful retaliation for constitutionally-protected speech. The AP emphasized that the Government cannot deny a benefit, such as access to critical newsgathering locations, in response to the exercise of free speech rights. It argued that the clear linkage between its Stylebook decision and the exclusion from events demonstrated retaliatory intent beyond any legitimate regulatory purpose and detailed the adverse effects of this exclusion on its journalistic functions, including being severely disadvantaged in photographic coverage and suffering significant delays in disseminating breaking news stories due to the inability of its wire reporters to attend key presidential events. The AP distinguished its circumstances from those in the Baltimore Sun Co. v. Ehrlich case, noting that unlike the minor inconveniences experienced by journalists in that case by being asked to find sources other than the governor’s staff, the AP suffered substantial, material harm affecting its economic position, professional reputation, and ability to fulfill its role as a major news organization. The AP submitted that it would suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief due to the ongoing violation of its First Amendment rights and the professional and economic consequences stemming from its systematic exclusion.

The Government argued that the AP was not categorically excluded from White House events and that its journalists, possessing hard-passes, remained eligible for selection to participate in press pool events and other limited-access briefings at the President’s discretion. The Government emphasized the President’s inherent authority to control access to limited and sensitive spaces such as the Oval Office and Air Force One, arguing that logistical, security, and discretionary considerations govern such access decisions, not a journalist’s editorial views. While acknowledging the public statements referencing the “Gulf of America” controversy, the Government submitted that the AP’s exclusion was based not on hostility to its viewpoint but rather on its refusal to recognize what the President believed to be a “lawful” geographic renaming in its Stylebook. The Government further argued that “forum analysis” (the aspect of the constitutional analysis that determines whether the First Amendment was violated based on the forum of the speech) was inapplicable to the Oval Office context, submitting that activities within the Oval Office constitute “pre-speech” rather than expressive activity protected by the First Amendment. The Government cited Price v. Garland to support its position that brief, passive participation by journalists in the Oval Office – such as standing in during photo-ops or silently observing remarks – does not transform the space into a forum warranting constitutional scrutiny. Accordingly, the Government maintained that the White House retains broad discretion to select and manage which journalists may be present during such activities.

With reference to the Baltimore Sun Co. v. Ehrlich case, the Government compared this case to situations where officials have declined to engage directly with reporters perceived as biased, suggesting that a government official’s control over interactions with the press includes discretion over who may attend sensitive presidential events. The Government insisted that the AP had failed to demonstrate the existence of irreparable harm, characterizing the AP’s claims as suggesting that no fundamental First Amendment rights were infringed simply because the AP desired – but was not automatically entitled to – “extra special access” beyond what other similarly situated news organizations received. [p. 40] The Government framed the dispute as a policy disagreement, not a constitutional crisis, and asked the Court to defer to the longstanding discretion of the executive branch in controlling access to its highest levels.

The Court examined the four requirements of a preliminary injunction, as set out in the Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc case: whether the requesting party can demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; whether there is a real risk of suffering irreparable harm without the injunction; whether the balance of hardships favors granting relief; and whether an injunction would serve the public interest. In addition, where, as in the present case the Government opposes the injunction, the Court must assess whether the considerations of balance of hardships and public interest merge.

The Court noted that the AP had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on its First Amendment claims of viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. With respect to viewpoint discrimination, the Court classified the Oval Office, the East Room, and other limited-access White House spaces as nonpublic fora – government property not traditionally open to public expression – but stressed that “while the AP does not have a constitutional right to enter the Oval Office, it does have a right to not be excluded because of its viewpoint.” [p. 21] Drawing on the cases of Cornelius v. NAACP Leg. Def. Fund and Perry Educ. Assn v. Perry Educators’ Assn, the Court held that once these spaces are opened to some journalists, the Government cannot exclude others based on their editorial stance.

The evidence, the Court found, showed a direct link between the AP’s refusal to revise its Stylebook’s “Gulf of Mexico” terminology and its exclusion from press pool events. This was most explicit in public statements by senior officials – most notably Deputy Chief of Staff Budowich’s declaration that, while the AP’s “right to irresponsible and dishonest reporting” was protected by the First Amendment, such protection does not ensure their access to limited spaces. [p. 6] The Court held that these comments constituted direct evidence of discriminatory motive and rejected the Government’s reliance on Price v. Garland by emphasizing that AP journalists engage in “full-fledged expression” while newsgathering in real time, rather than merely preparatory activity. It also found the Baltimore Sun Co. v. Ehrlich case “inapposite,” distinguishing that case’s refusal-to-engage rationale from the AP’s denial of physical access to forums otherwise available to peers in the present case. [p. 29]

On the retaliation claim, the Court applied the standard articulated in Baltimore Sun Co. v. Ehrlich which requires that a plaintiff show the government responded to “constitutionally protected activity with conduct or speech that would chill or adversely affect [its] protected activity.” [p. 33] The Court recognized that the AP’s editorial decision to continue using “Gulf of Mexico” in its Stylebook was constitutionally protected and found that the Government’s public discontentment – including explicit announcements restricting the AP’s access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and East Room events – constituted a clear adverse response. The Court found that causation was satisfied, noting that “[i]f there is a benign explanation for the Government’s decision, it has not been presented here,” and highlighting the Government concession at the evidentiary hearing that viewpoint-discriminatory motives were present. [p. 33] The Court found that the AP’s ability to gather news was materially impaired, concluding that “the ramifications for the AP have undoubtedly been adverse,” and that the AP will likely succeed on this claim. [p. 33]

In its assessment of the irreparable harm factor, the Court found that the AP had demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm, explaining, with reference to Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. United States, that “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,” constitutes irreparable harm when the plaintiff shows that its “First Amendment interests are either threatened or in fact being impaired at the time relief is sought”. [p. 37] The Court identified evidence that the AP’s ability to gather and quickly disseminate news about the President had been hindered by its exclusion from the press pool and limited-access events, emphasizing that delays in capturing photographs and details of breaking news can be “catastrophic” to a news organization’s function. [p. 35] The Court found that the exclusion “cut deeply into the AP’s business, both financially and in terms of lost opportunities,” noting that the AP had been “economically hemorrhaging for the last two months” and faced worsening conditions as its clients turned to other news outlets, concluding that the AP’s harm must be considered irreparable. [p. 37-38]

In weighing the equities, the Court recognized the White House’s legitimate interest in maintaining security and logistical control over limited-access events but it emphasized that policy goals “may never triumph over the Constitution,” citing Karem v. Trump. The Court concluded that the public interest strongly favored an injunction as protecting First Amendment freedoms “is always in the public interest.” [p. 39] It rejected the Government’s claim that the AP sought “extra special access,” clarifying instead that the AP sought only equal treatment alongside similarly situated news organizations.

Accordingly, the Court held that the AP is likely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claims, finding that the Government unlawfully discriminated against the AP’s viewpoint and retaliated against its protected editorial choices by excluding it from press-pool availabilities and limited-access briefings. The AP’s exclusion inflicted concrete, irreparable harms on its ability to gather and disseminate news in real time. The Court granted the AP’s motion for a preliminary injunction and prohibited the Government, until further order, from excluding the Associated Press from any press-pool event or limited-access White House briefing on the basis of viewpoint or in retaliation for its editorial decisions.

---