CNN has a right to a press pass for its representation in the WH press corps, Acosta specifically most likely does not have a right specific to him. If CNN has reporters still allowed to enter and cover the WH then the case can easily be defeated. This is a legal look at this, not taking a political side.
Acosta certainly cannot have a right specific to him, and I'm not sure that CNN or any other media outlet does either. The 1st amendment covers the right to disseminate news and opinion without censorship of interference from the government. I not sure that it covers the right to gather and have access to what can be considered newsworthy. One might argue that denying them, an entire media corporation a press pass is censorship, but then where do you draw the line? Are only the mega, multi billion dollar media giants given this right? Do not smaller, perhaps even very small and obscure outlets have a right to access? If not, why not? It would be an interesting argument to see the SCOTUS take on.
This cuts to the heart of the problem. The media, the entire media, is very short on actual journalists, and we have an abundance of political activists posing as journalists. Get back to actual journalism and this problem becomes much smaller.
The White House is a public place, so a person can be excluded by revoking a pass if their behavior is deemed inappropriate based on due process, it cannot be arbitrary and capricious. CNN is a recognized media source and due to limited space in the WH they are allowed to have access over thousands of tiny obscure press or any random person who prints a newsletter. Just because CNN's right to be there is defended does not mean that all small and obscure outlets suddenly have open rights to be there as well. They have to apply like anyone else. This process is legal and denying tiny outlets is not in violation of administrative law principles. It is very easy to justify that an outlet with 30,000 viewers can be denied a press passs due to space limitations while cable channels and print press with much larger circulation can be admitted. The law does not create absolutes based on one person's rights. SO SCOTUS need not address this, it has been covered in SC precedent going back over a century. Look at this from a legal standpoint which is a more sound argument than politically or assuming that rights are forced upon all overriding other administrative law concerns.
Well there you go with an intelligent, well thought out response. That's not what we normally do here, so I'm at a loss. As you have presented the case I'm inclined to agree that small and obscure outfits don't have a legal argument which would hold up. I'm still not so sure that CNN, or any of those currently receiving that press pass have a constitutional right to get one. Would it be a political mistake for a president to deny an entire major news outlet access to the press conference? I would think so. Is it illegal? Not sure.
That's what I questioned, is CNN banned or just Acosta? If just Acosta imo, undermines CNN's position. CNN is still open to send a reporter. Acosta is being barred for his behavior. If CNN is having a hard time replacing Acosta, that's their problem.
I think banning a whole network would not pass muster under due process. Remember you cannot be banned from a public place without due process and the decision cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The only justifcation that could be presented to ban CNN would be the president's claim that CNN is fake news and that is just a political argument that is not justified under the 1st Amendment. Fake news is an opinion against a political position and kind of what the 1st Amendment is there to protect. Obama cannot ban FOX and Trump cannot ban CNN. That is why FOX joined CNN in support because they benefit from the same precedent even if they dislike CNN as a network. They do understand the principle that protects both of them has to be upheld It is not so much as a constitutional right to get a press pass, it would be unconstitutional to deny one already obtained for a public place for an arbitrary reason. CNN is a recognized media outlet and to say CNN goes but FOX stays is purely political and would not pass muster.