Mark Levin just penned a few thoughts of his on the lawsuit that CNN has filed against Trump over the revocation of Jim Acosta’s White House pass:
I just read CNN’s lawsuit against the administration over Jim Acosta. It’s a very weak case, but if they get before an Obama or Clinton district judge, who knows. CNN hired Ted Olson’s firm, and he has signed onto the lawsuit. Olson was hired for a few reasons: 1. As a former Reagan official and lawyer for Bush in Bush-Gore, CNN hopes to make the PR case that this a bipartisan matter; 2. CNN hopes to make the PR case that it is upholding the Constitution against a rogue administration; and, 3. CNN has employed a top Supreme Court litigator.
Nonetheless, it is a ridiculous suit. CNN still has reporters at the White House and in the presidential press conferences; Acosta does not have a constitutional right to be physically present in the press room, anymore than the scores of media outlets that do not; Acosta can watch the press conference from outside the White House grounds as they are televised; the president cannot be compelled by any court to actually call on any particular reporter during a press conference; Acosta does not have a constitutional right to disrupt the press conference with his various antics anymore than any other reporter; and, a president is not constitutionally compelled to hold a presidential press conference. The courts should stay out of this on separation of powers grounds, among other things. No one is preventing Acosta from reporting or CNN from broadcasting.
I don’t think there’s a legitimate court out there that would hear this case on the merits. And they shouldn’t, as Levin points out.
But unfortunately there are quite a few activist judges who love to oppose Trump, so it’s possible CNN could get traction on this in the lower courts.
I would expect a higher court to dismiss it if that happens, and I would hope it doesn’t go all the way to the Supreme Court. CNN doesn’t need that kind of publicity.