Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa Bay news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Charlotte news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Legal experts say that CNN's lawsuit filed Tuesday against the Trump administration for removing CNN's chief White House correspondent's press credentials holds merit, because legal precedents in the U.S. support the network's argument.

Why it matters: If CNN comes out victorious, it will reinforce a legal precedent that says government officials, even as powerful as the president, can't remove a member of the press corps' credentials for arbitrary reasons. If it doesn't, the precedent will be set that government officials can restrict access to journalists they dislike.

What they're saying: Legal experts are mostly in agreement that the law is on CNN's side.

"I think CNN’s got a very good case. I think this will be resolved quickly.”
— Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst on Fox News
"Overall, CNN has a very strong claim, particularly under the First Amendment."
— Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst on Twitter

Breaking down the lawsuit: CNN says it has grounds to sue the administration based on three legal principles that stem from the Bill of Rights and other U.S. laws that have been tested in the courts.

1. First Amendment violation: In its lawsuit, CNN cites an established legal precedent from a 1977 D.C. Circuit Court case, Sherrill v. H. Knight. That case basically says that, while the public doesn't have a right to White House access, the First Amendment prohibits denial of a press pass "arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” CNN also cites a 1964 Supreme Court case, N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, which says the First Amendment protects speech even when the president doesn't like it.

  • The dispute: The White House first said it removed Acosta's pass because it wouldn't tolerate "a reporter placing his hands on a young woman.” Later it changed that argument, saying the reporter "physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern." This happened after Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was called out for tweeting a doctored video of the incident as evidence.
  • The argument: "In changing the reason for which it removed the press pass, it made the White House's reasoning look pretextual," says Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which filed a brief in support of CNN's lawsuit.

2. Fifth Amendment violation: CNN asserts that the White House's decision to revoke Acosta’s press credentials violates the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

  • The dispute: CNN argues that Acosta received no direct notice from the White House that his credentials had been revoked, nor did he receive any notice about the incident beforehand or any chance to appeal the decision, which inhibits him from doing his job.
  • The argument: Citing Sherrill v. Knight, Josh Geltzer, executive director of Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, which co-filed a brief in support of CNN's lawsuit with the Reporters Committee, says the government is allowed to act in the best interest of the security of the White House, within reason.
  • "The court indicated a willingness to grant deference to the government to calibrate a security threshold, but it mandated that there be a process because it recognized this matters a lot to journalists," Geltzer says, and in this case, there was no process at all.

3. Violation of administrative procedure: CNN says that the final decision to yank the credentials by the Secret Service violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies issue regulations.

  • The dispute: CNN says that by revoking Acosta’s hard pass, the Secret Service's actions were "arbitrary and capricious," which violates the act.
  • The argument: This, legal experts say, is likely the easiest case for CNN to make, because it would only have to prove the violation of a procedural law rather than a constitutional right.

Be smart: While many legal precedents have been set around these issues at the local level, this lawsuit is unique in targeting a sitting president and his staff.

The bottom line: A strong legal framework in the United States makes it likely that CNN could win this case. That would be a defeat for Trump, who wars with the press, calls the media "fake news," and has threatened antitrust action against some outlets.

What's next? The case has been assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Trump last year. CNN has called for an "immediate restoration of Acosta’s press credentials and hard pass" while the case is being reviewed.

Go deeper

Scoop: Gina Haspel threatened to resign over plan to install Kash Patel as CIA deputy

CIA Director Gina Haspel. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

CIA Director Gina Haspel threatened to resign in early December after President Trump cooked up a hasty plan to install loyalist Kash Patel, a former aide to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), as her deputy, according to three senior administration officials with direct knowledge of the matter.

Why it matters: The revelation stunned national security officials and almost blew up the leadership of the world's most powerful spy agency. Only a series of coincidences — and last minute interventions from Vice President Mike Pence and White House counsel Pat Cipollone — stopped it.

Updated 10 hours ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

  1. Health: Coronavirus deaths reach 4,000 per day as hospitals remain in crisis mode — CDC warns highly transmissible coronavirus variant could become dominant in U.S. in March.
  2. Politics: Biden says, "We will manage the hell out of" vaccine distribution — Biden taps ex-FDA chief to lead Operation Warp Speed amid rollout of COVID plan — Widow of GOP congressman-elect who died of COVID-19 will run to fill his seat.
  3. Vaccine: Battling Black mistrust of the vaccines"Pharmacy deserts" could become vaccine deserts — Instacart to give $25 to shoppers who get vaccine.
  4. Economy: Unemployment filings explode againFed chair: No interest rate hike coming any time soon —  Inflation rose more than expected in December.
  5. World: WHO team arrives in China to investigate pandemic origins.

John Weaver, Lincoln Project co-founder, acknowledges “inappropriate” messages

John Weaver aboard John McCain's campaign plane in February 2000. Photo: Robert Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images)

John Weaver, a veteran Republican operative who co-founded the Lincoln Project, declared in a statement to Axios on Friday that he sent “inappropriate,” sexually charged messages to multiple men.

  • “To the men I made uncomfortable through my messages that I viewed as consensual mutual conversations at the time: I am truly sorry. They were inappropriate and it was because of my failings that this discomfort was brought on you,” Weaver said.
  • “The truth is that I'm gay,” he added. “And that I have a wife and two kids who I love. My inability to reconcile those two truths has led to this agonizing place.”