A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
For more on the legal battle between the White House and the three media outlets that were banned, we're joined now by Ted Boutrous. He is the lawyer representing CNN, MS NOW and Politico. And we'll note that he has represented NPR in the past, and that NPR joined the current case as part of a group of media outlets that signed on to an amicus brief.
You know, we've seen the TV networks have not resumed pooled coverage of the president yet. Not clear if CNN is being allowed to participate. What's your understanding of what's happening there?
TED BOUTROUS: The same as yours, that as of right now, we have not seen CNN restored to the television pool, which we think is very important, which we argued to the judge was the type of access that needed to be restored. And it's important for the American people because, as you know, the other members of the pool, the other four networks, are refusing to provide pool coverage in solidarity with CNN. They and CNN would much rather continue to provide that sort of coverage for the American people. I'm hoping that the White House will realize they're just shooting themselves in the foot if they keep excluding CNN. And again, we believe it's covered by the temporary restraining order.
MARTÍNEZ: The next decision the judge could make is whether or not to grant an injunction against the Trump administration's ban. How confident are you that he will?
BOUTROUS: We feel very confident. The law is so clear in the District of Columbia that reporters have a liberty interest because of their First Amendment activity in their press credentials. And that means you can't take it away absent due process. And then we have powerful First Amendment arguments because President Trump has not been shy about making clear that the reason he banned these news organizations and the reporters is because he doesn't like what they report.
MARTÍNEZ: Now, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly made his ruling based on an alleged violation of the media's due process rights, not because of any First Amendment arguments. Do you, Ted, see this as a free-speech case? Or are you focused maybe on the process by which the administration removed the journalists' access?
BOUTROUS: This is a fundamental free-speech and free-press case. The judge only ruled on the due process issues because it was just so clear and so obvious. Now, in the preliminary injunction proceedings, the next phase, he will consider all of our arguments, including the First Amendment arguments, which are retaliation. The White House retaliated against these journalists because of their content and because of their speech activities in order to stop them and to deter other journalists. And then, viewpoint discrimination. Pure and simple, that is really anathema to the First Amendment and to democracy.
MARTÍNEZ: Now, it seems like the White House is attempting a do-over. They sent a letter to CNN, MS NOW and Politico. And it reads, in part, (reading) your organization has exhibited behavior in violation of the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House complex, including by trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues and publishing sensitive or classified information.
So, Ted, the White House is now setting a deadline, Friday afternoon, for your clients to appeal the removal of their credentials. Are they going to follow that process?
BOUTROUS: We think that process is just a faux process. And then Judge Kelly looked at it and said, look, those standards don't do the trick, I believe was the phrase he used - that they don't provide any guidance, they're completely subjective. And so we think that process has been really overtaken by the temporary restraining order. And the other thing is that what they're really complaining about is journalism.
The First Amendment is intended to protect journalists who hold government officials accountable and get information the government doesn't necessarily want to be public and report on it. That supports national security. That's better for the country. So I don't think that after-the-fact process, it's too late under the due process clause, can save the day for the government.
MARTÍNEZ: Ted Boutrous is a lawyer representing CNN, MS NOW and Politico in their case against the Trump administration. Ted, thanks.
BOUTROUS: Thanks for having me.
(SOUNDBITE OF QUANTIC'S "TIME IS THE ENEMY") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
