A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected a request to restore a news organization’s access to certain presidential events after claims it was being unconstitutionally punished for refusing to use a newly designated name for the Gulf of Mexico. The decision came after the organization sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to regain access to events taking place in locations such as the Oval Office, Air Force One, and the president’s private residence.
The judge denied the request for emergency relief, stating that the news organization failed to demonstrate “irreparable harm,” as it could still obtain the same information through pool notes shared with members of the White House Correspondents Association. The delay in filing the lawsuit was also cited as evidence that the harm was not immediate or severe.
Although the request for immediate relief was denied, the judge suggested that the administration might struggle to defend its actions when the case is argued on its merits. He noted that legal precedent in Washington, D.C., does not favor restrictions on press access based on content, warning that the administration should carefully consider whether its actions align with constitutional protections.
The complaint alleged that the administration unlawfully sought to control the organization’s editorial choices by demanding the use of specific terminology. The lawsuit argues that the government cannot dictate the language used by the press, as doing so threatens the fundamental right to free expression. The legal filing emphasized that the Constitution does not allow the government to exercise control over speech or retaliate against journalists who refuse to comply with official directives.
According to the lawsuit, White House officials informed the news organization on February 11, 2025, that its reporters would be barred from certain press events unless it adopted the president’s preferred terminology for the Gulf of Mexico. The directive followed an executive order renaming the body of water, purportedly as part of a broader effort to restore names deemed reflective of national pride. Despite this, the organization continued to use the established name while acknowledging the newly assigned designation, maintaining that its global audience requires consistent and recognizable geographic terms.
The lawsuit contends that the ban violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, describing the decision as retaliatory action against constitutionally protected speech. The administration, however, has defended its stance, arguing that the organization is not being denied general access but rather “special media access” to exclusive presidential events. It asserts that such access remains at the president’s discretion and is not a constitutional right.
In its legal response, the administration emphasized that the president is not obligated to grant interviews or provide access to all journalists, nor is he required to invite specific reporters into his personal workspace, official plane, or private residence. The argument maintains that such decisions fall within the president’s personal discretion and do not infringe upon constitutional rights.
A hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for March 20, when the court will further consider the merits of the case.
