White House Media Credential Revocations Face Due Process Challenge

A 1977 federal precedent requiring procedural justification before revoking press access creates a legal standard that courts have applied before, raising questions about whether the current...

The Trump administration's revocation of press credentials for three media outlets is likely to face a legal challenge grounded in a 1977 federal court ruling, according to Washington Examiner economics columnist Tiana Lowe Doescher, who made the assessment in a September 22 appearance on Newsmax's The Right Squad.

Doescher pointed to Sherrill v. Knight, a 1977 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, as the controlling precedent. In that case, the court held that the Secret Service could not deny a journalist a White House press pass without providing a reason and an opportunity to respond. The ruling established that once the government creates a system of press access, it must administer that system in accordance with due process protections under the First and Fifth Amendments.

"Trump tried to do this in 2018 when he wanted to revoke fake news Jim Acosta's hard pass," Doescher said, according to the Washington Examiner. "And what the D.C. District Court said was there was prior precedent set in the 1970 case that was Sherrill v. Knight."

The 2018 incident Doescher referenced involved CNN correspondent Jim Acosta. The White House suspended Acosta's hard pass following a post-midterm press conference. CNN filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and Judge Timothy J. Kelly, in an order dated November 16, 2018, granted a temporary restraining order requiring the White House to restore Acosta's credentials. The court applied the Sherrill standard. The White House restored the credential shortly after the ruling.

The current revocations involve three media outlets. The specific outlets, the stated grounds for revocation, and the date each credential was pulled are details that the White House had not made fully public as of the time of this report. The document that would specify those grounds is the official written notice of revocation, which would be held by the affected outlets and potentially filed as an exhibit if litigation is initiated.

According to the Washington Examiner, the credential dispute arose on Monday, September 21, in the context of a broader standoff over presidential coverage. White House officials responded to the situation by moving forward with coverage through alternative channels. The administration has maintained interest in direct-to-public video distribution, an approach that has been discussed internally for several years, according to that report.

The Sherrill precedent does not prohibit the government from revoking press credentials entirely. It requires that any denial or revocation be accompanied by notice of the reasons and a procedure through which the journalist or outlet can contest the decision. Courts applying Sherrill have not required full adversarial hearings but have required something more than a unilateral decision with no stated rationale.

If the affected outlets file suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the case would likely be assigned under standard random assignment procedures. The plaintiffs would need to demonstrate standing, show that a protected liberty or property interest is at stake, and argue that the process afforded was constitutionally inadequate. The government would be expected to argue that access to presidential events is a discretionary grant, not a protected entitlement.

The broader context includes a standing dispute between the White House Correspondents' Association, which administers the press pool system, and the executive branch over who controls access to pool coverage of the president. The White House Correspondents' Association issues credentials through a process it manages jointly with the Secret Service, which conducts background checks. Sherrill arose precisely from that dual-authority structure.

For prior TCT reporting on a related incident involving the press pool and the White House, see Shooting at WHCA Dinner in April Left Trump Demanding Return to Ballroom.

What remains unknown includes the identity of all three outlets whose credentials were revoked, the specific written justification provided by the White House, and whether any of the outlets have retained counsel or filed a complaint as of the date of this report. A Freedom of Information Act request to the Secret Service for any written denial notices would be one mechanism to obtain that documentation, though FOIA exemptions related to law enforcement or security screening could delay or limit disclosure.