Sure there is. Virtually every government action which favors or disfavors one person over another is reviewable. You can parse this scenario as a restriction on speech, which means it gets strict scrutiny assuming the distinction between speakers is viewpoint-based (see Tired & Cranky’s excellent post). Or you can parse it as an equal protection violation, which means (assuming there is no suspect classification involved) it still has to pass rational basis review.
The only non-reviewable acts are those which the Constitution explicitly reserves to one of the political branches, and there is nothing in the constitution which suggests the POTUS should have wide latitude about favoring certain speakers over others in briefings.
I’m not aware of any relevant case law involving the president.
I’m aware of a boatload of limited public forum case law, though, which suggests it’s not an easy call. If the courts were to rule on it, they’d likely end up fashioning a new rule to support a viewpoint-based exclusion rule, if that’s the way they ended up going.
I meant in the actual text of the constitution. There is nothing there that compels the courts to rule in favor of the reporter instead of the president, since press briefings are not mentioned at all. It’s something the president does voluntarily and is an invitation only event. The reporters are not the speakers. They are there to report, and the press conference is not set up as a round-robin to share different ideas. It’s set up so that the president can speak about policy or other matters to the citizens.
The president can hold no press conferences if he so chooses, he can decide that questions are not allowed at all if he so chooses, and he can decide who gets called on to ask questions if questions are allowed.
No one in the press is prevented from publishing anything they like and no one is being denied a right to speak since no one has that right at that venue to begin with. And by “speak” I mean use that platform to advocate for political ideas. Time and place, and this is neither the time nor the place.
I think that the public forum, limited public forum, etc. arguments miss the point. No, the President is not required to speak to reporters. However, when he does so and invites a select few in to listen and possibly ask questions, then that is a government benefit to the reporters.
And like any government benefit, one cannot condition the receipt of that benefit on something unconstitutional. Imagine if Trump held an easter egg hunt at the White House. He can obviously limit the number of children who appear, but he cannot say that your kid cannot come because you are a Democrat, or an atheist.
The reporters are there to report and speak. The questions the reporters choose to ask are part of the speech at issue. I don’t know what you mean that it’s neither the time nor the place; there is arguably no venue that is more political or important than a presidential presser.
The POTUS can certainly refuse to hold press conferences entirely. That’s his prerogative. The problem is that if he chooses to hold them, he cannot discriminate between invitees or questioners based on viewpoint. This is a largely universal rule with regard to voluntary acts of government actors.
For example, a state could permissibly have closed all of its public schools rather than provide an integrated school system in response to Brown v. Board of Education; states have no federal constitutional obligation to provide public education.* However, it could not selectively close schools in districts with black students or provide subsidies for segregated private schooling.
*Some southern states were only readmitted to the Union because they promised to provide public education, but no court has yet found that this created a right to public education in those states. However, a number of state constitutions guarantee the right to public education.
Could someone from the Truther Times who asks nothing except questions about why the Jews caused 9-11 be excluded or is the President constitutionally obligated to answer his question at every press conference?
Customarily, no. There are plenty of fringe types in the WH press room on any given day. Presidents routinely ignore them. None of them seem to have tried to take legal action.
You are welcome. I’ll find the Court’s ruling later, if I can, but rest assured it will be based in part, if not all, on the First Amendment, as prayed for in the Complaint.
I understand the broad strokes, but how would this work in practice? If I am the local dog catcher and some guy is blasting my Facebook wall every time he sees a stray dog and telling me to get off my lazy ass and go do something about it, I must keep him as a FB friend?
What if in one of his 500 screeds he uses a profanity? Can I ban him for profanity? Is he allowed to be abusive? What if he says that since I’m too lazy to catch the stray dogs, maybe I should get my whore of a wife to go out and do it when she’s done with her shift at the truckstop bathroom? I have to endure that?
And to keep the analogy straight, this isn’t the “UltraVires County Dog Catcher” FB account, it is my personal account.
I’m not sure it does. Are they saying that public figures are required to take all forms of abuse and trolling? I think that goes too far and threatens to shut down access to social media from government entities and officials. I know our department and local government social media accounts state all profanity and abusive language will be deleted. Some very important information is disseminated through social media to the public. If it became the playground for trolls with no recourse I would recommend shutting it down.
Please point out if there was part of the ruling that addresses this.
It seems great when it’s their guy, not so much when it’s your guy.
What is the exact definition of official correspondence?
As far as I can tell she uses it just like Trump. She uses it to convey her positions and to broadcast her proposals
and ideas. The account identifies her as a member of Congress and she does not appear to have a separate “official” twitter account and a personal one.
The lawsuit is from two Republican politicians I’ve never heard of who are saying they were blocked for being critical not for being abusive.
She certainly discusses policy using the @AOC account. As a Congresscritter, she doesn’t have as much official communicating to do as a POTUS so it’ll be a finer line. Still, I don’t see any meaningful distinction between AOC and D45 for the purposes of this analysis.
ETA: she does have an “official” Twitter account as well, but so does Trump (@POTUS I think).