When presidents ban journalists from the White House, the First Amendment is not the only constitutional right at stake

Following President Trump's September 2026 revocation of White House credentials for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, the outlets sued, and commentary has focused heavily on the First Amendment. A constitutional law professor argues the more decisive claim is the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee, citing the 1977 case Sherrill v. Knight, which required the government to give notice and a chance to respond before denying a press pass.

Public reporting indicates the administration gave none of that: no written notice of reasons, no opportunity to rebut the claim that the outlets reported 'FICTION and LIES.' The same due-process framework was central to the 2018 ruling that restored Jim Acosta's credentials after a similar Trump administration attempt.

The piece notes that no Supreme Court precedent establishes a clear constitutional right of press access to the White House itself, meaning the outlets' strongest legal footing may be procedural rather than expressive.

The full dispatch is available from the source below.