Latest news with #NeomiRao
Japan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
Trump can bar AP from some White House events for now, U.S. appeals court says
President Donald Trump is free to bar the Associated Press from some White House media events for now, after a U.S. appeals court on Friday paused a lower court ruling mandating that AP journalists be given access. The divided ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily blocks an order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward. The 2-1 ruling was written by U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, joined by fellow Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas. Rao wrote that the lower court injunction "impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces" and that the White House was likely to ultimately defeat the Associated Press' lawsuit. The Associated Press in a statement said it was disappointed by the decision and weighing its options. Trump in a statement on his social media platform Truth Social called the D.C. Circuit order a "Big WIN over AP today." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt in a statement on X said the Associated Press "is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations." She said the White House "will continue to expand access to new media." In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of former U.S. President Barack Obama, said her two colleagues' ruling cannot be squared with "any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy." The AP sued in February after the White House restricted the news outlet's access over its decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its coverage despite Trump renaming the body of water the Gulf of America. The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights. McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints. Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces. "The Constitution does not prohibit the President from considering a journalist's prior coverage in evaluating how much access he will grant that journalist,' lawyers for the administration said in a court filing. On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets. Other media customers, including local news organizations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets. The AP says in its stylebook that the Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years and, as a global news agency, the AP will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
White House ban on Associated Press can continue, appeals court rules
A federal appeals court will allow the White House to exclude the Associated Press from access to the Oval Office, Mar-a-Lago and Air Force One if it chooses, according to a new court order in the ongoing legal battle over press access. The decision hangs on a court finding that some White House spaces are not open to the broader public or large groups of press, and so the White House can choose which journalists it chooses to admit. A lower court judge previously blocked the administration from excluding the Associated Press, and the appeals court has sided with the White House at this time. The decision could bring about more appeals over the White House press corps and its access around the president. 'These restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' DC Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote Friday. 'No one suggests the Oval Office is a traditional public forum such as a park or sidewalk held in trust for expressive activity.' The court, in a split 2-1 decision Friday, didn't include excluding the AP from the larger East Room space. CNN has reached out to the White House and AP for comment. The AP has claimed the White House is discriminatory against it because of a First Amendment-protected viewpoint –specifically not changing its editorial style guide to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, as President Donald Trump has directed. CNN's Brian Stelter and Samantha Waldenberg contributed to this report.
CNN
3 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
White House ban on Associated Press can continue, appeals court rules
A federal appeals court will allow the White House to exclude the Associated Press from access to the Oval Office, Mar-a-Lago and Air Force One if it chooses, according to a new court order in the ongoing legal battle over press access. The decision hangs on a court finding that some White House spaces are not open to the broader public or large groups of press, and so the White House can choose which journalists it chooses to admit. A lower court judge previously blocked the administration from excluding the Associated Press, and the appeals court has sided with the White House at this time. The decision could bring about more appeals over the White House press corps and its access around the president. 'These restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' DC Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote Friday. 'No one suggests the Oval Office is a traditional public forum such as a park or sidewalk held in trust for expressive activity.' The court, in a split 2-1 decision Friday, didn't include excluding the AP from the larger East Room space. CNN has reached out to the White House and AP for comment. The AP has claimed the White House is discriminatory against it because of a First Amendment-protected viewpoint –specifically not changing its editorial style guide to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, as President Donald Trump has directed.
CNN
3 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
White House ban on Associated Press can continue, appeals court rules
A federal appeals court will allow the White House to exclude the Associate Press from access to the Oval Office, Mar-a-Lago and Air Force One if it chooses, according to a new court order in the ongoing legal battle over press access. The decision hangs on a court finding that some White House spaces are not open to the broader public or large groups of press, and so the White House can choose which journalists it chooses to admit. A lower court judge previously blocked the administration from excluding the Associated Press, and the appeals court has sided with the White House at this time. The decision could bring about more appeals over the White House press corps and its access around the president. 'These restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' DC Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote Friday. 'No one suggests the Oval Office is a traditional public forum such as a park or sidewalk held in trust for expressive activity.' The court, in a split 2-1 decision Friday, didn't include excluding the AP from the larger East Room space. CNN has reached out to the White House and AP for comment. The AP has claimed the White House is discriminatory against it because of a First Amendment-protected viewpoint –specifically not changing its editorial style guide to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, as President Donald Trump has directed.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Opinion - Religious tests for federal judges are unconstitutional and un-American
The American Family Association Action's Center for Judicial Renewal doesn't particularly like it when you say that it wants to impose an unconstitutional religious test on appointees to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. But that's what it is. And this aggressive and exclusionary Christian nationalism, embraced by much of the religious right and the MAGA movement, is wrong, unconstitutional and un-American religious discrimination. The argument is that there's a big difference between a 'preference' for specific religions among judges and an actual 'religious test' for holding office. But that distinction means little when a political group uses its influence to pressure presidents and U.S. senators to treat their preference as a de facto religious test. The bottom line is that conservative organizations are delving into the religious beliefs and practices of conservative judges to decide whether they would be acceptable to serve on the Supreme Court. The Center for Judicial Renewal's site lists 'worldview' as the first of '10 Principles of a Constitutionalist Judge,' explaining that 'the greatest predictor of their faithful and constitutional performance on the bench is their 'worldview' or 'Christian faith.'' The organization has put several conservative judges considered potential Supreme Court nominees on its unacceptable 'red list.' The public version of its 'serious concerns' dossier on Judge Neomi Rao includes under a 'Faith and Worldview' heading the fact that Rao 'was raised in an immigrant family of Zoroastrian tradition and converted to Judaism when she got married.' So it appears that only Christians are acceptable to them, and then only Christians who meet the religious right's 'biblical worldview' standard. The change in the language on their website from 'biblical worldview' to 'worldview' after public criticism does not change the substance of the effort. The American Family Association tells prospective students of its biblical worldview training course, 'In order to make an impact in culture, we must first submit ourselves to the clear teaching of Scripture and acknowledge its authority to dictate every area of our lives.' As the association and its allies apply this definition to legal and public policy questions, their standard requires opposition to legal abortion and equality for gay and transgender people and same-sex couples. It means accepting an interpretation of the Bible that dictates right-wing social and economic policies. It means undermining the separation of church and state and enforcing a right-wing view of religious liberty as a sword to justify discrimination rather than a shield to protect freedom. This religious worldview test betrays the letter and spirit of the Constitution, whose authors put in writing that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.' In other words, no public official can be required to hold particular religious beliefs. Along with the First Amendment, it's a core of our constitutional guarantee of religious liberty. To demand judges 'have a relationship with Jesus' on the grounds that they will be fairer seems like not only a religious test, but also a smear against fair-minded people who don't share this religious worldview. I'm a Christian, and it offends me. It certainly does not show respect for the peaceful pluralism that is a defining characteristic of our nation, where one's rights as a citizen, including the right to serve in public office, are not dependent on having particular religious beliefs. Indeed, some of the nation's founders had unorthodox Christian views that some might view as falling short. One key characteristic of Christian nationalism is the belief that certain kinds of Christians should hold a privileged and dominant place in society. Right-wing groups are attempting to impose just that with their effort to hang a sign on our courthouses that says 'no Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians or secularists need apply.' Other Trump-aligned Christian nationalists want to impose explicit tests for anyone holding public office. These calls raise the question of which religious or government figures would be responsible for evaluating whether someone's Christianity passes muster. When it comes to judges, the opinion piece argues that the White House and Senate should outsource that evaluation to those who adhere to its beliefs. President Trump has recently created a Religious Liberty Commission whose ostensible mission is to protect every American's religious liberty. One test of its sincerity would be whether it would publicly reject and disavow this attempt to impose religious discrimination on our courts. Trump and every U.S. senator should do the same. Svante Myrick is president of People For the American Way. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
