# Is it unconstitutional for Trump to ban some reporters? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 27, 2018, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710 "2018-07-27T23:25:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pohjonen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pohjonen/32/423_2.png) [@pohjonen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pohjonen)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/1 "2018-07-27T23:25:54Z")
The constitution prohibits Congress making a law abridging the freedom of the press. Does that mean the prez can bar select members of the press who annoy him? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/2 "2018-07-28T00:22:21Z")
What law is he making by doing so? For most of American history, the idea of a President talking to a reporter, much less having open press conferences in which anyone can ask any question, was utterly unthinkable. It’s a 20th century invention. It’s now customary and expected. But that’s norms and mores. Nothing to do with law. If there were a first amendment claim to attend a press conference and ask questions, then why aren’t you doing it? ---
**Author:** ![pohjonen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pohjonen/32/423_2.png) [@pohjonen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pohjonen)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/3 "2018-07-28T00:37:53Z")
That’s what I thought, but I’m not a constitutional lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/4 "2018-07-28T03:29:25Z")
> [@pohjonen](#): > > The constitution prohibits Congress making a law abridging the freedom of the press. Does that mean the prez can bar select members of the press who annoy him? It’s [happened before](http://youtube.com/watch?v=WLx4ZAl5j4E) without a constitutional crisis. Although banning a pool reporter from a scheduled event for asking [del]inconvenient[/del] disrespectful questions is guaranteed to raise media hackles, it would appear not to violate the First Amendmentl. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/5 "2018-07-28T03:36:17Z")
If it’s unconstitutional for Trump to block people from his Twietter feed based on their past comments against him, I can see the argument that it’s unconstitutional to block particular news folk based on their unfavourable coverage of him. [Trump can’t block Twitter followers, federal judge says](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/trump-cant-block-twitter-followers-federal-judge-says.html) ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/6 "2018-07-28T16:38:30Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > It’s [happened before](http://youtube.com/watch?v=WLx4ZAl5j4E) without a constitutional crisis. That was a heckler interrupting a speech, not a reporter. Loud hecklers get removed from political events every day by politicians on every level and from every party. Totally irrelevant to this thread. Did Obama and other presidents try - and sometimes succeed - in avoiding or banning certain reporters or companies? Sure. They all do, but mostly it’s temporary because the optics are bad and the other news companies put pressure on them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/7 "2018-07-28T17:29:12Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > ``` > What law is he making by doing so? > > ``` That’s not necessarily a good test. Lots of things don’t create laws but are still prohibited to the different branches of government. The president can’t fire someone for religious purposes or decide that the NYT can no longer publish newspapers. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > If it’s unconstitutional for Trump to block people from his Twietter feed based on their past comments against him, I can see the argument that it’s unconstitutional to block particular news folk based on their unfavourable coverage of him. > > [Trump can’t block Twitter followers, federal judge says](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/trump-cant-block-twitter-followers-federal-judge-says.html) That’s not the same thing. He’s not stopping anyone from reporting about anything. He’s just not giving them access to him. Now, the OP is a bit vague about he means by “bar select members of the press”, but I assume it means banning certain members of the press from WH briefings. There are a limited number of spots, so you have to be invited. The president isn’t required to speak the press at all, so he can invite whomever he wants to briefings and disinvite anyone he wants, too. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/8 "2018-07-28T17:35:09Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > It’s [happened before](http://youtube.com/watch?v=WLx4ZAl5j4E) without a constitutional crisis. > > Although banning a pool reporter from a scheduled event for asking [del]inconvenient[/del] disrespectful questions is guaranteed to raise media hackles, it would appear not to violate the First Amendmentl. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > If it’s unconstitutional for Trump to block people from his Twietter feed based on their past comments against him… It’s nice to cite any single law or regulation as deriving from What We All Agree On is almost always (:)) the Gospel, and thus violating one is All-the-more Incredibly Bad. But that’s not how it works. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/9 "2018-07-28T19:56:49Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That was a heckler interrupting a speech, not a reporter. Loud hecklers get removed from political events every day by politicians on every level and from every party. Totally irrelevant to this thread. > > Did Obama and other presidents try - and sometimes succeed - in avoiding or banning certain reporters or companies? Sure. They all do, but mostly it’s temporary because the optics are bad and the other news companies put pressure on them. Cite that Obama ‘banned certain reporters or companies’ ? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/10 "2018-07-28T20:41:01Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Cite that Obama ‘banned certain reporters or companies’ ? In 2009 Obama admin tried to exclude Fox from a specific interview/event but the other reporters protested and the admin relented. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/11 "2018-07-28T20:54:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The president isn’t required to speak the press at all, so he can invite whomever he wants to briefings and disinvite anyone he wants, too. I agree with your overall sentiment, but not this statement. There is pretty clear case law that holds that once a government actor does a thing, it must comport with constitutional requirements. For example, my city is not required by any law to open a public pool. However, once it does so, it cannot say no blacks allowed under the guise that there doesn’t have to be a pool at all so don’t complain. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/12 "2018-07-29T00:10:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Now, the OP is a bit vague about he means by “bar select members of the press”, but I assume it means banning certain members of the press from WH briefings. There are a limited number of spots, so you have to be invited. The president isn’t required to speak the press at all, so he can invite whomever he wants to briefings and disinvite anyone he wants, too. Except that it’s not up to the president to decide which members of the press can attend press briefings. Instead, that is decided by the [White House Correspondents’ Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Correspondents%27_Association), “founded on February 25, 1914 by journalists in response to an unfounded rumor that a United States congressional committee would select which journalists could attend press conferences of President Woodrow Wilson.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/13 "2018-07-29T00:20:32Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Except that it’s not up to the president to decide which members of the press can attend press briefings. Instead, that is decided by the [White House Correspondents’ Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Correspondents%27_Association), “founded on February 25, 1914 by journalists in response to an unfounded rumor that a United States congressional committee would select which journalists could attend press conferences of President Woodrow Wilson.” What legal status does that group have? It doesn’t appear to have any. What if the president just says: I’m not giving any more press briefings and Sarah Huckabee Sanders and I are going to play canasta during the time when those briefings would nominally have been held? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/14 "2018-07-29T00:25:49Z")
Sure, if he wants to end a hundred years of presidential tradition. Who am I kidding? He’s been doing that his whole term of office. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/15 "2018-07-29T00:30:40Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Except that it’s not up to the president to decide which members of the press can attend press briefings. Instead, that is decided by the [White House Correspondents’ Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Correspondents%27_Association), “founded on February 25, 1914 by journalists in response to an unfounded rumor that a United States congressional committee would select which journalists could attend press conferences of President Woodrow Wilson.” But by what authority? Based on the linked article I see nothing to indicate that their decisions are binding. In fact, it specifically says that not every member of the WH press corp is a member of WHCA. On preview I see that **John Mace** raised the same question. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/16 "2018-07-29T02:02:13Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > In 2009 Obama admin tried to exclude Fox from a specific interview/event but the other reporters protested and the admin relented. Do you have an actual cite for that? and since the ‘admin relented’ - do you have a cite that Obama himself was behind it or the reasoning behind it?\ Actually - I found this - > **[President Obama's Feud with FOX News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obamas-feud-with-fox-news/)** > > After Months of Taking Heat from FOX News Stars, the White House is Firing Back > [@](#): > > After months of taking incoming fire from the prime-time stars of Fox News, the Obama White House is firing back, charging that FOX News is different from all other news. > > “FOX News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director. > > “If media is operating basically as a talk radio format, then that’s one thing, and if it’s operating as a news outlet, then that’s another,” Mr. Obama said. > > And the White House has gone beyond words, reports CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield. Last Sept. 20, the president went on every Sunday news show - except Chris Wallace’s show on FOX. And on Thursday, **the Treasury Department tried to exclude FOX News** from pool coverage of interviews with a key official. It backed down after strong protests from the press. So - a) not President Obama himself - and b)not from a Presidential event either ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/17 "2018-07-29T03:46:08Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > What law is he making by doing so? > > For most of American history, the idea of a President talking to a reporter, much less having open press conferences in which anyone can ask any question, was utterly unthinkable. It’s a 20th century invention. > > It’s now customary and expected. But that’s norms and mores. Nothing to do with law. If there were a first amendment claim to attend a press conference and ask questions, then why aren’t you doing it? This has to be one of the all-time worst answers I’ve ever read at this message board to a question asked in GQ. It addresses none of the relevant legal concepts. Your simple assertion that the First Amendment applies only to laws passed by Congress is laughably wrong, for starters. If you’re not going to give a question a legitimate answer, why bother posting? It’s not GD. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/18 "2018-07-29T08:10:52Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > This has to be one of the all-time worst answers I’ve ever read at this message board to a question asked in GQ. It addresses none of the relevant legal concepts. Your simple assertion that the First Amendment applies only to laws passed by Congress is laughably wrong, for starters. …can you quote the exact sentence where Exapno Mapcase claims “the First Amendment applies only to laws passed by Congress?” Because I’ve read what they wrote about 10 times over and I can’t see it. > [@](#): > > If you’re not going to give a question a legitimate answer, why bother posting? It’s not GD. BIG accusation there. As this is GQ and not GD, would you care to explain what Exapno Mapcase got wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/19 "2018-07-29T08:33:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > [Blocking people on Twitter is] not the same thing. He’s not stopping anyone from reporting about anything. He’s just not giving them access to him. Blocking someone on Twitter doesn’t stop them from talking about things, it just blocks access to him. The Twitter ruling was that, so long as he has created a public forum for discussion of his policies, that discussion is protected by the First Amendment and he has to allow people to join it. Now the press briefing is not open to the general public, but it does serve as the representatives of the public and, specifically, to subgroups who want their views to be part of the discussion. If the President is allowing Republican sources to hear him and ask him questions but not Democratic, then that is blocking the free discussion by half the public - though be it by proxy. That said, I don’t know that the Twitter case will remain true if it goes all of the way to the Supreme Court (if the government is challenging it), nor that the “by proxy” argument would win, even if we accept the Twitter judgement, but I do think that the Twitter judgement is strongly linked to this one. If it fails then this one is a no go. If it succeeds or is allowed to sit as us, then this is a real question for the courts. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710/20 "2018-07-29T12:44:17Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > > > Except that it’s not up to the president to decide which members of the press can attend press briefings. Instead, that is decided by the [White House Correspondents’ Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Correspondents%27_Association), “founded on February 25, 1914 by journalists in response to an unfounded rumor that a United States congressional committee would select which journalists could attend press conferences of President Woodrow Wilson.” > > But by what authority? Based on the linked article I see nothing to indicate that their decisions are binding. In fact, it specifically says that not every member of the WH press corp is a member of WHCA. As I understand it, membership in the WHCA is a requirement to attend the White House press briefings but the group still decides who attends. That’s been the arrangement with the White House for a hundred years. Does that give the current arrangement some sort of de facto legal status, so if Trump were decide to choose which media sources are permitted to attend, that might be considered a First Amendment violation? And in any case, even if the WHCA has no legal standing, they could choose to collectively boycott White House press briefings to protest the exclusion of a member of the press. It might be embarrassing for the White House to have a press briefing with only one or two reporters present, rather than a full room, and that might cause them to cave. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-unconstitutional-for-trump-to-ban-some-reporters/818710.md?page=2)