Fox News joins support for CNN in White House press-pass lawsuit

Fox News Network is among the media organisations supporting the lawsuit brought by CNN, MS NOW and Politico. The company is listed in the amicus brief filed on September 23 with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the White House Correspondents’ Association. AP and Reuters are also listed, among others. [1] [2]

The brief seeks temporary protection against the three outlets’ exclusion. According to the WHCA, the government cannot bar journalists because it dislikes their reporting. That is the position the association brings to this proceeding. [2]

A shared interest, separate newsrooms

The legal support does not make Fox News a co-plaintiff alongside CNN. An amicus brief allows third parties to present arguments to a court in support of a position in a case. That is different from taking responsibility for another newsroom’s articles. [1]

The shared concern here is specific: the conditions under which journalists can access those in power. As an editorial matter, a news organisation can defend that access without endorsing a competitor’s choices, tone or conclusions. This is our interpretation of the limited scope of the support, not a statement about the participating newsrooms’ personal motives.

The administration disputes the entitlement

In its opposition, the Justice Department argues that White House access is a privilege. It invokes professional standards and the protection of sensitive information, and considers the subsequent opportunity to respond adequate. That is the administration’s position against the outlets’ legal objections. [3]

The supporting brief does not decide the case for the judge. On September 24, however, a temporary order was issued: Timothy Kelly required the relevant officials to restore the revoked passes for fourteen days. He based that intervention on the likely violation of procedural due process protections. [4]

The distinction matters. The coalition advances press-freedom arguments; the temporary order rests on a judicial assessment of procedure. The existence of both does not establish that the judge adopted every argument in the brief or that the case has been finally won.

Background: the earlier joint response to the exclusion.