Transcripción completa de The First Amendment and White House Press Access

CNN, MSNOW, 72 00:03:33.689 --> 00:03:37.620 and Politico had asked for on the grounds of due 73 00:03:37.719 --> 00:03:41.919 process rather than straight First Amendment grounds. And he ordered 74 00:03:41.939 --> 00:03:45.939 the White House to restore the revoked hard passes. Those 75 00:03:46.000 --> 00:03:49.139 hard passes are the, you may have heard these discussed 76 00:03:49.460 --> 00:03:52.759 ever since the Jim Acosta stuff back in, I think, 2019. 77 00:03:52.759 --> 00:03:55.819 Hard passes are passes the reporters get that essentially allow 78 00:03:55.860 --> 00:03:58.199 them to come and go at will from parts of 79 00:03:58.240 --> 00:04:01.090 the White House. They had been revoked and they were 80 00:04:01.180 --> 00:04:05.300 ordered to be restored for 14 days while they do 81 00:04:05.319 --> 00:04:07.939 the briefing for the preliminary injunction. 82 00:04:07.960 --> 00:04:09.439 I believe the. 83 00:04:09.400 --> 00:04:13.060 Government had also asked that they stay. 84 00:04:12.680 --> 00:04:15.520 The TRO, in other words, make it so that they 85 00:04:15.560 --> 00:04:18.139 did not have to give the hard passes back right away. 86 00:04:18.199 --> 00:04:20.509 But the judge said no to that. And he said, 87 00:04:20.529 --> 00:04:23.490 we're going to do 14 days and the ban is 88 00:04:23.569 --> 00:04:27.500 over for now. This got adventurous this morning because Around 89 00:04:27.500 --> 00:04:30.120 6 a.m. is my understanding, and this is my understanding 90 00:04:30.160 --> 00:04:34.040 from X, etc., CNN showed up and their hard passes 91 00:04:34.060 --> 00:04:37.040 were not reactivated. And there was some drama over that. 92 00:04:37.079 --> 00:04:41.040 I think Politico also got told their hard passes were reactivated. 93 00:04:41.100 --> 00:04:44.600 But I think by noon or so, the access had 94 00:04:44.620 --> 00:04:47.769 been restored. Whether or not that was a bureaucratic snafu 95 00:04:47.930 --> 00:04:51.810 or it was 1.30 a.m. to 6 and nobody was awake, etc. 96 00:04:52.009 --> 00:04:54.709 This morning, it was like, oh, is this the constitutional crisis? 97 00:04:54.730 --> 00:04:56.430 But it looks like crisis averted for now. 98 00:04:56.730 --> 00:04:57.029 Who knows? 99 00:04:57.069 --> 00:04:58.009 It might be back on at 2.06 p.m. 100 00:04:59.879 --> 00:05:02.560 Michael, anything else from you on the decision last night? 101 00:05:03.670 --> 00:05:07.350 Well, the government had also requested if the judge was 102 00:05:07.370 --> 00:05:09.550 going to issue the temporary restraining order that he converted 103 00:05:09.589 --> 00:05:12.430 to a preliminary injunction, which would have allowed them to 104 00:05:12.490 --> 00:05:15.769 appeal it immediately to the D.C. Circuit, and he declined 105 00:05:15.850 --> 00:05:19.410 to do that. So that will mean that there'll be 106 00:05:19.810 --> 00:05:24.009 continued litigation, presumably in the district court for the 14 107 00:05:24.009 --> 00:05:27.740 days or so. And then if the opinion holds, there 108 00:05:27.759 --> 00:05:29.339 could be an appeal at that point, but not yet. 109 00:05:30.600 --> 00:05:32.339 Okay, so we don't actually have an answer on the 110 00:05:32.360 --> 00:05:34.860 First Amendment question. We have an answer on the due 111 00:05:34.920 --> 00:05:39.120 process question, which may sharpen the First Amendment question. If 112 00:05:39.170 --> 00:05:41.889 there is a process provided and then we've got, we 113 00:05:41.930 --> 00:05:44.769 end up with the same result, right? If they go 114 00:05:44.790 --> 00:05:47.610 through the process and then say, and we've now concluded 115 00:05:47.629 --> 00:05:49.889 that you pose the threat. 116 00:05:49.709 --> 00:05:50.449 That we said before. 117 00:05:50.470 --> 00:05:52.470 I can go into detail-wise. 118 00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:55.959 Just what they found is that the case that the 119 00:05:56.019 --> 00:05:58.139 court keeps coming back to and has been coming back 120 00:05:58.180 --> 00:06:03.410 to in these press access cases, this case from the 1970s, 121 00:06:03.589 --> 00:06:06.050 Cheryl is the name of the case. I forget that 122 00:06:06.069 --> 00:06:08.470 the other part is, but in the Cheryl case. 123 00:06:08.629 --> 00:06:09.110 Go ahead. 124 00:06:09.589 --> 00:06:11.689 Yeah, I think Cheryl B. Knight, I think. Cheryl B. Knight, 125 00:06:11.730 --> 00:06:12.149 that's right. 126 00:06:12.170 --> 00:06:16.970 And in the case, That case, we'll probably get into 127 00:06:17.009 --> 00:06:19.930 that a little bit more in detail later, but what 128 00:06:20.029 --> 00:06:23.009 that case came down to was actually a very similar 129 00:06:23.230 --> 00:06:26.360 finding to what was here, which was this person had 130 00:06:26.379 --> 00:06:30.740 their press pass, died, withdrawn, etc., was not told why, 131 00:06:31.199 --> 00:06:34.019 and the court, the D.C. court in that case, said 132 00:06:34.079 --> 00:06:37.180 that you couldn't do, there basically, there had to be 133 00:06:37.699 --> 00:06:42.829 some level of due process involved that happened and that 134 00:06:43.050 --> 00:06:46.000 there needed to be the chance to both know what 135 00:06:46.120 --> 00:06:50.180 led to the suspension and a chance to challenge it 136 00:06:50.259 --> 00:06:55.639 before that suspension or denial actually took effect. And that 137 00:06:56.060 --> 00:07:01.009 needs to happen before the action actually takes place. And that's, 138 00:07:01.230 --> 00:07:04.149 I think, Judge Kelly, he cited that and made very 139 00:07:04.189 --> 00:07:09.930 similar arguments here, not the Trump administration or made some effort. 140 00:07:10.120 --> 00:07:13.939 They sent letters after they announced the ban. They sent 141 00:07:14.000 --> 00:07:19.620 letters to the three news outlets, supposedly explaining what it 142 00:07:19.740 --> 00:07:23.930 was that they did that caused them to be banned, 143 00:07:23.949

--> 00:07:27.870 lose their press access. They accused them of violations of decorum, etc. 144 00:07:28.170 --> 00:07:30.129 It was a mix, if you look through these letters. 145 00:07:30.810 --> 00:07:34.850 of objections to the tone of their coverage or the 146 00:07:34.889 --> 00:07:39.449 nature of their coverage being negative, but also complaints about 147 00:07:39.689 --> 00:07:43.550 areas where the White House argued that it could compromise 148 00:07:43.649 --> 00:07:47.410 national security. They had reported on things that are classified 149 00:07:47.449 --> 00:07:53.069 or could be classified. So they mixed security and viewpoint-based 150 00:07:53.689 --> 00:07:57.360 reasons there, and the judge called that out. Actually, Judge 151 00:07:57.620 --> 00:08:00.199 Kelly called that out in his TRO and said it's actually, 152 00:08:00.399 --> 00:08:03.019 since they're mixed, it's not actually clear whether it's really 153 00:08:03.079 --> 00:08:07.420 about the security or about the objections to the viewpoint 154 00:08:07.759 --> 00:08:10.120 of the different news organizations. 155 00:08:12.360 --> 00:08:15.720 Okay, so once we get over to the First Amendment 156 00:08:16.279 --> 00:08:19.420 questions in this case, which I think are almost certainly 157 00:08:19.720 --> 00:08:21.800 coming soon, I think one of the big questions for folks, 158 00:08:21.819 --> 00:08:24.379 the way this keeps getting discussed is as a press case, 159 00:08:25.699 --> 00:08:28.220 is the Is this a press case or is this 160 00:08:28.300 --> 00:08:30.459 a free speech case? Is the press clause of the 161 00:08:30.500 --> 00:08:34.279 First Amendment doing any actual work here? Or is this 162 00:08:34.320 --> 00:08:38.620 basically just a First Amendment case that involves, a free 163 00:08:38.639 --> 00:08:40.220 speech case that involves the press? 164 00:08:40.740 --> 00:08:43.580 So Michael, Francisco, or Michael. 165 00:08:43.340 --> 00:08:45.000 Or Robert, either one of you, if you want to 166 00:08:45.200 --> 00:08:47.399 jump in on that question, how do we understand the 167 00:08:47.980 --> 00:08:49.059 First Amendment claim here? 168 00:08:49.620 --> 00:08:52.279 Well, I know the webinar is sponsored by the Free 169 00:08:52.299 --> 00:08:54.340 Speech Group, but it probably should be sponsored by the 170 00:08:54.360 --> 00:08:59.220 Due Process Group because A shocking number of these high-profile 171 00:08:59.299 --> 00:09:03.759 fights between the press and the executive branch all end 172 00:09:03.799 --> 00:09:07.730 up getting decided on procedural due process issues, not the 173 00:09:07.750 --> 00:09:11.009 First Amendment. It's probably because the due process standards are 174 00:09:11.549 --> 00:09:14.429 exceedingly malleable and judges can do whatever they want. It's 175 00:09:14.490 --> 00:09:17.629 much easier to write those opinions for the clerks. In 176 00:09:17.649 --> 00:09:21.750 terms of your press clause question, Casey, I

think it's 177 00:09:21.820 --> 00:09:24.139 doing a little bit of work because let's... What is 178 00:09:24.159 --> 00:09:24.919 this case about? 179 00:09:25.360 --> 00:09:25.580 Are they. 180 00:09:26.179 --> 00:09:31.220 restricting CNN or Politico from speaking? No, no, they could 181 00:09:31.240 --> 00:09:33.139 speak all they want. They can publish whatever they want 182 00:09:33.259 --> 00:09:36.299 critical of the president. What this is really about is 183 00:09:36.419 --> 00:09:39.779 whether CNN has a cool background for their little video 184 00:09:39.830 --> 00:09:42.649 feed talking about the press, because they get to be 185 00:09:43.049 --> 00:09:44.769 in front of the White House for their video feed. 186 00:09:45.250 --> 00:09:47.929 It's a little bit about whether they can be in 187 00:09:47.970 --> 00:09:51.549 the room to ask questions, which of course the president 188 00:09:51.570 --> 00:09:53.929 and the press secretary don't ever have to call them 189 00:09:53.950 --> 00:09:58.429 or answer their questions. But that all sounds like news gathering, 190 00:09:58.470 --> 00:10:01.379 at least the answering the questions. the questions part. I 191 00:10:01.429 --> 00:10:04.519 find their interest of fancy backdrops to be a little 192 00:10:04.539 --> 00:10:08.340 bit lacking, certainly as an irreparable injury for a TRO. 193 00:10:08.659 --> 00:10:12.220 So in that sense, this is a case about their 194 00:10:12.259 --> 00:10:15.860 ability to engage in news gathering. I don't think it 195 00:10:15.919 --> 00:10:19.049 is truly a case about restricting their ability to speak. 196 00:10:19.169 --> 00:10:21.389 This case gets a lot of attention because the media 197 00:10:21.429 --> 00:10:25.129 loves itself. No surprise there, but most of the things 198 00:10:25.149 --> 00:10:29.070 they're talking about covering are live broadcast these days on 199 00:10:29.090 --> 00:10:32.330 the internet anyway. So it really is not as if 200 00:10:32.980 --> 00:10:36.580 lacking a hard pass somehow makes it a mystery to 201 00:10:36.639 --> 00:10:38.659 CNN what's going on or Politico. 202 00:10:39.759 --> 00:10:40.480 Robert, your thoughts? 203 00:10:41.539 --> 00:10:43.879 Yeah, I guess I have a, I'm less sanguine about 204 00:10:43.940 --> 00:10:48.710 the idea of telling these groups that they don't actually 205 00:10:48.769 --> 00:10:52.429 need to be there in person in order to break 206 00:10:52.490 --> 00:10:55.009 the kind of news that they want to break. I 207 00:10:55.049 --> 00:10:56.710 do think that we all know it'd be better to 208 00:10:56.750 --> 00:10:59.210 do this webinar in person if we could do that. 209 00:10:59.289 --> 00:11:02.769 There is definitely a, there's a difference in being, I think, 210 00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:04.580 one of the cases that the judge put it in 211 00:11:04.600 --> 00:11:06.440 the room where it happens. I think that was Judge 212 00:11:06.500 --> 00:11:10.419 Rao in the Budovich case. And

there is some importance 213 00:11:10.519 --> 00:11:14.100 to that. I don't think that the principles should change 214 00:11:14.139 --> 00:11:17.539 just because it is so easy for everything to be 215 00:11:17.679 --> 00:11:21.049 live streamed now. So I think there is definitely an 216 00:11:21.490 --> 00:11:26.649 impairment being put on CNN, Politico, MSNOW compared to other 217 00:11:26.830 --> 00:11:30.269 outlets by being totally banned. Every single employee of theirs 218 00:11:30.350 --> 00:11:32.860 banned from all of the White House grounds. 219 00:11:34.220 --> 00:11:36.509 OK, one of the questions that I've Actually, we even 220 00:11:36.549 --> 00:11:38.590 have a question in the chat that I think from 221 00:11:38.750 --> 00:11:41.950 Andrew Yurko that I think hints in this direction. But 222 00:11:42.490 --> 00:11:45.289 one of the common arguments here, and we've already maybe 223 00:11:45.340 --> 00:11:47.500 even heard it a little bit already amongst us, is 224 00:11:47.539 --> 00:11:50.580 that there's no right to press access. Press doesn't have 225 00:11:50.600 --> 00:11:52.240 a right to a press credential. You don't have a 226 00:11:52.299 --> 00:11:54.240 right to be able to go to the White House 227 00:11:54.700 --> 00:11:59.730 and certainly be on Air Force One or interview the president, right? Instead, 228 00:11:59.759 --> 00:12:02.009 it's a privilege to be able to have that sort 229 00:12:02.029 --> 00:12:07.149 of access. How does that affect the First Amendment analysis here? Robert, 230 00:12:07.169 --> 00:12:08.440 I'll come back to you on that one first. 231 00:12:09.559 --> 00:12:09.759 Yeah. 232 00:12:09.919 --> 00:12:10.120 Okay. 233 00:12:10.139 --> 00:12:13.220 So in terms of the First Amendment analysis, I think 234 00:12:13.419 --> 00:12:16.259 where the rubber is most likely to hit the road 235 00:12:16.299 --> 00:12:20.909 is in the area of retaliation, is the idea that 236 00:12:21.190 --> 00:12:23.929 I think in most of these cases, everybody has agreed 237 00:12:23.950 --> 00:12:28.250 that the president, the executive branch doesn't actually have to 238 00:12:28.330 --> 00:12:32.679 allow anybody to on the anybody on the White House 239 00:12:32.750 --> 00:12:35.850 grounds or in these these areas that are not necessarily 240 00:12:35.970 --> 00:12:39.350 private or excuse me, not necessarily public areas. And there's 241 00:12:39.409 --> 00:12:42.100 actually a discussion about what parts of the White House 242 00:12:42.500 --> 00:12:45.919 are a non-public forum versus not even a forum at all. 243 00:12:46.240 --> 00:12:49.659 And given that form analysis really governs how we understand 244 00:12:49.679 --> 00:12:52.899 the way the First Amendment applies, those findings are pretty 245 00:12:52.950 --> 00:12:56.090 important as to how they do that. But either way, 246 00:12:56.129 --> 00:12:59.210 like the principle that while the government might be able 247 00:12:59.230 --> 00:13:03.549 to do

something for arbitrary or no reason or for 248 00:13:03.590 --> 00:13:07.899 a reason that you don't like versus an impermissible reason 249 00:13:07.940 --> 00:13:10.379 has been established for a really long time. And it 250 00:13:10.419 --> 00:13:13.320 goes back to, as we were saying, doing the research 251 00:13:13.360 --> 00:13:16.490 for this, this case Spicer versus Randall back in 1958, 252 00:13:16.490 --> 00:13:21.389 this was about California having a, they were offering tax 253 00:13:21.429 --> 00:13:24.350 exemptions on property tax, but they said you had to 254 00:13:24.610 --> 00:13:27.740 sign their loyalty oath. This was obviously during the Red 255 00:13:27.779 --> 00:13:30.960 Scare era and said that, well, okay, we, they don't have, 256 00:13:31.000 --> 00:13:33.019 then the court found that they don't have to give 257 00:13:33.039 --> 00:13:36.059 these exemptions to property tax, but if they're going to, 258 00:13:36.509 --> 00:13:39.970 They can't deny them based on something that has to 259 00:13:40.029 --> 00:13:44.529 do with disfavoring expression. And I think that's where things 260 00:13:44.549 --> 00:13:46.960 are going to come down here, especially because President Trump 261 00:13:46.980 --> 00:13:50.519 has made it so easy by saying over and over again, 262 00:13:50.539 --> 00:13:54.879 he's the main witness. about how this is about their 263 00:13:55.139 --> 00:13:59.269 viewpoint and his dislike of their editorial viewpoint. So I 264 00:13:59.289 --> 00:14:02.070 think that makes it a really easy thing for courts 265 00:14:02.169 --> 00:14:05.230 to rest on is saying, hey, a lot of times 266 00:14:05.269 --> 00:14:07.450 we don't, you might not have the evidence to say 267 00:14:07.470 --> 00:14:10.990 this is an impermissible reason behind this retaliation, that it 268 00:14:11.009 --> 00:14:14.049 was viewpoint discrimination. But here you have the president saying, yeah, 269 00:14:14.250 --> 00:14:16.240 I don't like your viewpoint and that's why I'm doing this. 270 00:14:18.080 --> 00:14:21.019 Michael, do you have a Since on that broader question, 271 00:14:21.200 --> 00:14:23.210 and I guess some degree on this kind of specific 272 00:14:23.230 --> 00:14:27.009 question about the president's comments and how that impacts the 273 00:14:27.029 --> 00:14:29.570 kind of viewpoint-based... The. 274 00:14:29.509 --> 00:14:32.970 President's comments, as has happened before, make the job of 275 00:14:33.029 --> 00:14:36.600 his attorneys a little bit more complicated to defend the action. 276 00:14:36.720 --> 00:14:41.159 But look, is the retaliation here? I don't know. Retaliation 277 00:14:41.320 --> 00:14:43.080 sometimes is a bit of a cop-out when you don't 278 00:14:43.120 --> 00:14:45.700 actually have a real First Amendment claim. You just say, oh, look, 279 00:14:45.720 --> 00:14:49.879 they don't like me. This is retaliation. The AP case, actually, 280 00:14:49.919 --> 00:14:54.200 it's ironic. Robert

mentioned Judge Rao's quote that they want 281 00:14:54.220 --> 00:14:55.559 to be in the room where it's happening because the 282 00:14:55.580 --> 00:14:58.820 AP lost that case. They're still losing that case. So 283 00:14:59.139 --> 00:15:03.149 that case is about press access to the parts of 284 00:15:03.169 --> 00:15:07.889 the White House, Oval Office, Air Force One, Mar-a-Lago, and 285 00:15:07.909 --> 00:15:11.149 the like. And the president there has a different position. 286 00:15:11.710 --> 00:15:15.129 He has kicked out the AP from that smaller set 287 00:15:15.649 --> 00:15:18.549 of journalists, sometimes known as the press pool. And he 288 00:15:19.250 --> 00:15:23.259 doesn't have any qualms about it. It's pure viewpoint discrimination. 289 00:15:23.299 --> 00:15:26.200 It's because they won't recognize the Gulf of America in 290 00:15:26.220 --> 00:15:28.720 their standards. And I bet most people here didn't realize 291 00:15:28.740 --> 00:15:31.779 the APs lost that case. In the district court, they 292 00:15:31.820 --> 00:15:34.470 got an injunction that's been frozen by the D.C. Circuit. 293 00:15:34.990 --> 00:15:39.529 The D.C. Circuit declined to lift that injunction and lost 294 00:15:40.149 --> 00:15:42.549 in the current time being because the case was argued 295 00:15:42.610 --> 00:15:45.789 on the merits to a panel with Judge Rao and 296 00:15:45.850 --> 00:15:49.730 Katzis last November. or December rather, and they have not 297 00:15:49.789 --> 00:15:52.429 issued an opinion. So we know the president can engage 298 00:15:52.470 --> 00:15:55.919 a viewpoint discrimination, at least in the initial opinion from 299 00:15:56.000 --> 00:15:58.860 Judge Rao and Katzis, as to certain parts of the 300 00:15:58.899 --> 00:16:03.299 White House. So is it retaliation here? I think obviously 301 00:16:03.320 --> 00:16:06.259 the president's comments are being construed as retaliation. 302 00:16:06.879 --> 00:16:07.960 And the president's. 303 00:16:07.580 --> 00:16:11.139 Lawyers explain that what seems like retaliation to you is 304 00:16:11.210 --> 00:16:15.370 us enforcing standards of decorum and professionalism. And they say 305 00:16:15.409 --> 00:16:18.620 that these, in the letters they've Their stated reasons are 306 00:16:18.679 --> 00:16:23.779 that these outlets trafficked in verifiable falsehoods about national security 307 00:16:24.279 --> 00:16:28.399 and published sensitive classified information. So if you want to 308 00:16:28.440 --> 00:16:32.299 say that there's retaliation, the government says it doesn't matter 309 00:16:32.379 --> 00:16:36.539 because we have valid reasons other than the president's statements 310 00:16:36.580 --> 00:16:39.299 that you're pointing to revoke the passes, and that's all 311 00:16:39.350 --> 00:16:39.950 we need to do. 312 00:16:42.090 --> 00:16:46.029 On AP versus Bidowich, Robert, your reaction to it, and 313 00:16:46.070 --> 00:16:49.039 I guess kind of the further or The distinctions between 314 00:16:49.080 --> 00:16:52.279 this case and that case, is it basically just that case, 315 00:16:52.340 --> 00:16:55.379 at least as it has developed, is now more specific 316 00:16:55.460 --> 00:17:00.200 to specific areas? And this is a, in total, you 317 00:17:00.240 --> 00:17:03.299 lose your credentials. Is that a fair understanding of kind 318 00:17:03.340 --> 00:17:06.079 of the difference between the two at this point? I 319 00:17:06.119 --> 00:17:08.220 think that's part of it. The reason the AP versus 320 00:17:08.259 --> 00:17:11.900 Budovich case, at least to me, has... so much valence 321 00:17:11.940 --> 00:17:13.950 here is my understanding. 322 00:17:13.910 --> 00:17:18.029 Is that while the government is quote unquote winning in 323 00:17:18.069 --> 00:17:21.569 that the AP has been allowed to be booted out 324 00:17:21.589 --> 00:17:24.750 of the press pool, et cetera, the original restriction on 325 00:17:24.809 --> 00:17:27.190 them was not just the press pool, but it was 326 00:17:27.250 --> 00:17:30.329 partially about the access to the briefing room, et cetera. 327 00:17:30.349 --> 00:17:33.519 It was similar to this in that It seemed like 328 00:17:33.579 --> 00:17:36.599 it was started out as the idea that we're going 329 00:17:36.619 --> 00:17:38.599 to keep them out of every part of this. 330 00:17:39.059 --> 00:17:40.039 And the D.C. 331 00:17:40.079 --> 00:17:42.509 Circuit, and we'll see what the merits come out, said 332 00:17:42.670 --> 00:17:45.769 that for most things, you don't have to invite the AP. 333 00:17:46.450 --> 00:17:48.390 You can basically use your bully pulpit. 334 00:17:48.450 --> 00:17:49.130 You can use. 335 00:17:49.549 --> 00:17:53.500 this sort of reward of giving access to the president 336 00:17:53.539 --> 00:17:56.680 in the Oval Office on Air Force One, et cetera. 337 00:17:56.720 --> 00:17:57.960 But you can't do it in the, I think they 338 00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:00.420 said the East Room, maybe the Brady Briefing Room. I'm 339 00:18:00.460 --> 00:18:02.309 not sure if those are the same thing, et cetera. 340 00:18:02.349 --> 00:18:07.029 But they got into the nature of the individual different 341 00:18:07.089 --> 00:18:10.359 parts of the White House And what the nature of 342 00:18:10.480 --> 00:18:14.230 those are as a forum, whether they are a non-public forum, 343 00:18:14.329 --> 00:18:17.329 which more or less they let the D.C. district courts 344 00:18:17.390 --> 00:18:20.009 determination that the briefing room or East Room was a 345 00:18:20.109 --> 00:18:23.690 non-public forum and therefore you couldn't do viewpoint discrimination. They 346 00:18:23.710 --> 00:18:25.799 allowed that to stand. So they'd be still allowed to 347 00:18:25.880 --> 00:18:28.779 go to the briefings, et cetera. But they can be 348 00:18:28.839 --> 00:18:32.039 kept out of the rest of the less public. public 349 00:18:32.119 --> 00:18:34.000 areas of the White House. And one

of the things 350 00:18:34.039 --> 00:18:36.809 I think they'll be determining is what is the nature 351 00:18:37.029 --> 00:18:39.569 of the forum? There was even discussion there, and maybe 352 00:18:39.589 --> 00:18:42.079 this is a little bit off topic over it, whether 353 00:18:42.140 --> 00:18:45.059 the forum is something that has to be an actual 354 00:18:45.119 --> 00:18:49.619 geographic location, a particular room of the White House or, 355 00:18:49.779 --> 00:18:52.619 you know, Air Force One itself, versus I think the 356 00:18:52.690 --> 00:18:57.009 AP had been arguing that the forum was arguably the 357 00:18:57.089 --> 00:19:00.269 press pool itself. And it was wherever the press pool is, 358 00:19:00.289 --> 00:19:04.329 there is the forum. And the two-judge majority there, they 359 00:19:04.390 --> 00:19:08.029 acued to the more geographic location. But I guess we'll 360 00:19:08.069 --> 00:19:09.990 see how that comes out. I do think this is 361 00:19:10.069 --> 00:19:11.529 one of those areas where it would be nice if 362 00:19:11.549 --> 00:19:14.829 the courts were operating a little more quickly. And that 363 00:19:15.049 --> 00:19:18.130 would certainly benefit, I think, everybody in the government to 364 00:19:18.170 --> 00:19:21.940 be actually paying more attention to where things are on 365 00:19:21.960 --> 00:19:24.319 these areas, because a lot of the past cases, as 366 00:19:24.359 --> 00:19:26.960 you read them, They keep coming back, as Michael said, 367 00:19:27.000 --> 00:19:29.019 to this idea that we didn't actually have any clearly 368 00:19:29.079 --> 00:19:33.359 established rules. You didn't know it's not fair to punish 369 00:19:33.420 --> 00:19:35.740 somebody for something. They didn't know what the extremity of 370 00:19:35.799 --> 00:19:38.099 it would be. They didn't actually know the outer boundaries 371 00:19:38.200 --> 00:19:42.990 of it. It's very vague and undefined what decorum might mean, obviously, 372 00:19:43.029 --> 00:19:46.490 for a reporter, sometimes being rude and asking rude questions. 373 00:19:46.829 --> 00:19:48.829 We would all think that's part of what a reporter 374 00:19:48.890 --> 00:19:51.609 is supposed to do. But there probably is some point 375 00:19:51.650 --> 00:19:54.170 at which decorum would be, you could argue that there's 376 00:19:54.359 --> 00:19:57.839 decorum stuff has gone too far. So it would be, 377 00:19:57.880 --> 00:20:01.019 it would have been, I think, wise for the administration 378 00:20:01.059 --> 00:20:03.440 if they actually wanted to have decorum rules. 379 00:20:03.240 --> 00:20:05.000 Here to actually promulgate those rules. 380 00:20:05.609 --> 00:20:07.670 And make it clear what they were, but it seems 381 00:20:07.730 --> 00:20:10.269 like that's almost never actually been done and it hadn't 382 00:20:10.289 --> 00:20:12.450 been done in the seventies and it still doesn't really 383 00:20:12.470 --> 00:20:13.609 seem like it's been done now.

384 00:20:14.450 --> 00:20:14.630 Yeah. 385 00:20:15.750 --> 00:20:15.990 Okay. 386 00:20:16.029 --> 00:20:18.049 So we got to get to this question because to me, 387 00:20:18.109 --> 00:20:21.490 this is I'm this is such a wonderful FedSoc nerd 388 00:20:21.569 --> 00:20:24.500 question that I'm excited to, to ask both of you. 389 00:20:24.599 --> 00:20:28.000 The first amendment begins. Congress shall make no law. 390 00:20:29.279 --> 00:20:32.980 Is there a federal law enacted by Congress that is 391 00:20:33.059 --> 00:20:37.960 actually involved here? And if not, why is, why does 392 00:20:38.000 --> 00:20:40.700 the first amendment apply? When you have incorporation to the states, 393 00:20:40.720 --> 00:20:43.859 you're at least incorporating the first amendment usually to, to 394 00:20:44.460 --> 00:20:48.660 state laws or state actions taken pursuant to state laws. 395 00:20:49.160 --> 00:20:51.750 I guess sort of hiding, hiding behind this is if 396 00:20:51.809 --> 00:20:54.230 it says Congress shall make no law, are there certain 397 00:20:54.349 --> 00:20:59.730 things that the president just does that by its terms, 398 00:20:59.789 --> 00:21:04.130 the first amendment doesn't apply to on its face? Michael, 399 00:21:04.190 --> 00:21:07.460 I'll come to you first, and then come to Robert after. 400 00:21:07.480 --> 00:21:11.500 I'm pretty sure, Casey, you forgot about Article 3, Section 401 00:21:11.500 --> 00:21:15.359 47 that says anything President Trump does or says is 402 00:21:15.400 --> 00:21:18.990 subject to immediate challenge, whether it be a press statement 403 00:21:19.130 --> 00:21:21.750 or an executive order that directs an agency to consider 404 00:21:21.789 --> 00:21:26.349 taking an action. I don't recall where the courts decided 405 00:21:26.390 --> 00:21:29.650 to apply the First Amendment extended from Congress to the 406 00:21:29.690 --> 00:21:32.599 executive branches. off the top of my head, Casey. I'm 407 00:21:32.660 --> 00:21:35.500 sure we made that misstep in the 60s or before. 408 00:21:35.960 --> 00:21:39.000 I would say, to generalize it a little bit, part 409 00:21:39.019 --> 00:21:41.559 of the question here is really, does the First Amendment 410 00:21:41.579 --> 00:21:45.180 apply to this part of the White House and this activity? 411 00:21:45.339 --> 00:21:48.519 The AP case, who knows exactly how it will ultimately 412 00:21:48.579 --> 00:21:53.769 end up, but we're talking about the courts micromanaging the 413 00:21:53.849 --> 00:21:56.410 White House. I don't think that should be lost here. 414 00:21:57.450 --> 00:22:00.940 The case is not just that you can't have a 415 00:22:00.980 --> 00:22:04.440 discriminatory reason to exclude the Sherrill case that we're talking about. 416 00:22:05.000 --> 00:22:07.619 That case just makes up from whole cloth, the standard 417 00:22:07.640 --> 00:22:10.839 that says the president has to have a quote, compelling 418 00:22:11.420 --> 00:22:15.619 reason in quote, to take away somebody's hard pass and 419 00:22:15.720 --> 00:22:16.440 the hard pass. 420 00:22:16.819 --> 00:22:17.180 I mean, of. 421 00:22:18.680 --> 00:22:20.559 All the journalists in the world, we're talking about a 422 00:22:20.599 --> 00:22:23.299 thousand people that have this so-called hard pass that have 423 00:22:23.339 --> 00:22:25.089 the privilege of getting to go on the white house. 424 00:22:25.549 --> 00:22:26.869 And by the way, if it's a privilege and not 425 00:22:26.880 --> 00:22:29.109 a right, then the president's going to win this case ultimately. 426 00:22:29.579 --> 00:22:31.579 There has to be a constitutional right here for any 427 00:22:31.599 --> 00:22:33.779 of these cases to make sense. And the main right 428 00:22:33.799 --> 00:22:36.640 they press is the property right in this pass. The 429 00:22:36.660 --> 00:22:39.920 press fool, that's the AP case about the Oval Office. 430 00:22:40.180 --> 00:22:42.680 Now that's an even smaller subset. That's 20 or so 431 00:22:42.740 --> 00:22:47.180 people that the president selects. And I hear Robert saying, OK, well, 432 00:22:47.200 --> 00:22:49.579 that makes sense. The president can decide who he wants 433 00:22:49.599 --> 00:22:52.619 in that pool of 20. First Amendment doesn't apply there. 434 00:22:52.640 --> 00:22:56.309 Viewpoint discrimination, I guess, is OK, because that's a small 435 00:22:56.349 --> 00:22:59.859 number of people. And it's the Oval Office. That's different. 436 00:23:00.359 --> 00:23:02.619 I just don't think it's different. I think the president 437 00:23:02.680 --> 00:23:05.950 controls the White House. He controls the access to it. 438 00:23:06.109 --> 00:23:07.970 And I think there's a good case to be made 439 00:23:08.049 --> 00:23:10.789 that the form analysis and certainly this made up standard 440 00:23:10.809 --> 00:23:14.549 of a compelling reason shouldn't apply to the president for 441 00:23:14.609 --> 00:23:17.890 this particular activity. I don't think it's the First Amendment 442 00:23:17.930 --> 00:23:20.410 does not apply is my take on what the first 443 00:23:20.450 --> 00:23:22.690 principles would say here. There's a lot of case law 444 00:23:22.710 --> 00:23:25.170 that's going to have to get adjusted for that to 445 00:23:25.210 --> 00:23:27.750 be the case. But this is a conflict. 446 00:23:27.349 --> 00:23:27.829 Of the branches. 447 00:23:28.240 --> 00:23:30.190 It is striking when you read these cases that you 448 00:23:30.230 --> 00:23:35.289 have courts micromanaging who the president should let in his 449 00:23:35.809 --> 00:23:38.490 own building. I think it's a little bit crazy that 450 00:23:38.509 --> 00:23:41.190 we're at the place now where courts feel free to 451 00:23:41.210 --> 00:23:42.470 micromanage to this level. 452 00:23:42.910 --> 00:23:44.680 Well, you know, thank you, Robin, coming to you here. 453 00:23:44.720 --> 00:23:47.599 But I think that to reframe just a little bit, 454

00:23:47.619 --> 00:23:52.319 I think very often we're dealing with executive branch action, right? 455 00:23:52.339 --> 00:23:55.740 But it's executive branch action that's at least pursuant to 456 00:23:56.730 --> 00:24:01.549 Congress telling the agency, here is. 457 00:24:00.670 --> 00:24:02.529 A program for you to run, right? 458 00:24:02.930 --> 00:24:06.789 So at least the authority behind whatever the agency is 459 00:24:06.849 --> 00:24:11.059 doing flows from Congress, right? So in that sense, the 460 00:24:11.099 --> 00:24:15.000 First Amendment applying in that context still makes sense. Are 461 00:24:15.039 --> 00:24:19.720 we a step beyond that here when you get to the, 462 00:24:20.119 --> 00:24:23.450 take the, maybe the hardest possible question in this context, 463 00:24:23.490 --> 00:24:26.410 the president just decides I will not sit for an 464 00:24:26.509 --> 00:24:30.309 interview with anyone from X network because I do not 465 00:24:30.349 --> 00:24:32.789 agree with, because they don't like me and I don't 466 00:24:32.829 --> 00:24:33.230 like them. 467 00:24:33.509 --> 00:24:33.690 Right. 468 00:24:34.130 --> 00:24:35.109 I don't like their viewpoint. 469 00:24:35.690 --> 00:24:38.930 There's, there may be no money involved other than whatever 470 00:24:39.059 --> 00:24:41.380 Congress appropriates to keep the lights on in the white 471 00:24:41.400 --> 00:24:42.079 house or something. 472 00:24:42.140 --> 00:24:42.279 Right. 473 00:24:42.839 --> 00:24:44.440 So if there really. 474 00:24:44.240 --> 00:24:47.779 Is no Congress connection to the story at all, is 475 00:24:47.819 --> 00:24:50.660 that a situation where the first amendment just by its 476 00:24:50.700 --> 00:24:51.579 terms doesn't apply? 477 00:24:53.799 --> 00:24:55.420 Well, It's an interesting question. 478 00:24:55.480 --> 00:24:58.160 First, I want to say that I was I actually 479 00:24:58.200 --> 00:25:03.000 think there is probably some I am not OK with 480 00:25:03.460 --> 00:25:07.549 necessarily just waving off the concerns about somebody being booted 481 00:25:07.609 --> 00:25:10.230 out of the press pool for their viewpoint. I think 482 00:25:10.309 --> 00:25:13.430 courts have allowed that to happen. And I do think 483 00:25:13.470 --> 00:25:16.349 there's maybe some prudential reasons for it. But I don't 484 00:25:16.390 --> 00:25:19.869 know that it is different in kind kicking somebody out 485 00:25:19.930 --> 00:25:23.529 of the smaller press pool. than it is kicking them 486 00:25:23.730 --> 00:25:27.880 out of the larger brief room, etc. I suspect there's 487 00:25:27.890 --> 00:25:30.640 a lot of sort of results-based jurisprudence that's happening there 488 00:25:30.720 --> 00:25:33.779 because for the very reason that I do agree that 489 00:25:33.980 --> 00:25:36.900 I don't see, I have a hard time arguing, I 490 00:25:36.920 --> 00:25:38.900 would have a hard time arguing, and I think courts 491 00:25:38.920 --> 00:25:41.680 would have a very hard time finding that the president 492 00:25:41.740 --> 00:25:44.759 had to sit down for an interview. So you've got 493 00:25:44.799 --> 00:25:47.630 this this sort of issue as we often have in 494 00:25:47.650 --> 00:25:51.970 these free speech areas where there is an extreme that 495 00:25:52.170 --> 00:25:55.940 nobody really wants to say. It doesn't make sense. President 496 00:25:55.960 --> 00:25:57.720 Trump has to talk to Jim Acosta, has to have 497 00:25:57.759 --> 00:25:59.559 us sit down for a one-on-one interview, or they have 498 00:25:59.579 --> 00:26:02.019 to roll the dice and everything has to be a lottery, 499 00:26:02.059 --> 00:26:04.700 whatever it would take to make it fair. Nobody wants 500 00:26:04.720 --> 00:26:07.769 to push it that far. And I don't think the 501 00:26:07.809 --> 00:26:11.630 Constitution requires that. But it's one of those issues where, 502 00:26:11.750 --> 00:26:14.700 you know, just because they're There's not clear when something 503 00:26:14.740 --> 00:26:17.950 is red versus something is orange doesn't mean that there 504 00:26:18.009 --> 00:26:21.569 isn't a red and an orange that exists out there. 505 00:26:21.730 --> 00:26:21.970 Right. 506 00:26:22.049 --> 00:26:23.470 And this is one of those where do you draw 507 00:26:23.490 --> 00:26:27.109 the line of law school questions where what is the 508 00:26:27.150 --> 00:26:29.730 kind of form that's being created here? I just I'm 509 00:26:29.779 --> 00:26:33.819 not comfortable more generally, particularly given the size of the 510 00:26:34.000 --> 00:26:37.440 administrative state that we have, I think. And like Michael, 511 00:26:37.480 --> 00:26:39.920 I don't remember exactly what the case is where we 512 00:26:39.960 --> 00:26:44.400 decided that the First Amendment applied purely to executive branch issues. 513 00:26:44.700 --> 00:26:46.440 But I would want to say that the White House 514 00:26:46.559 --> 00:26:49.569 is also not owned by President Trump. It is funded 515 00:26:49.660 --> 00:26:53.569 by appropriations from Congress. It's not as though there is 516 00:26:53.710 --> 00:26:58.009 no nexus at all. Congress is that was our primary 517 00:26:58.109 --> 00:27:00.990 branch is the one that's most representative for us. And 518 00:27:01.049 --> 00:27:03.410 they're given that power of the purse. And so I 519 00:27:03.450 --> 00:27:06.109 think they always have some that the If it just 520 00:27:06.150 --> 00:27:08.690 comes down to Congress shall make no law, I do 521 00:27:08.710 --> 00:27:10.650 spend a lot of time, because I deal with students 522 00:27:10.710 --> 00:27:12.910 all the time, explaining that, okay, when the First Amendment 523 00:27:12.930 --> 00:27:16.049 says Congress shall make no law, it also means that 524 00:27:16.089 --> 00:27:19.029 the University of North Carolina shall make no rule. You 525 00:27:19.069 --> 00:27:21.549 just need to be aware of that. And I allied 526 00:27:21.670 -->

00:27:23.829 over all that because it is complicated how that all 527 00:27:23.869 --> 00:27:26.680 became put together. But I do think that there is, 528 00:27:26.869 --> 00:27:28.890 we do need to understand that, like, all of this 529 00:27:28.990 --> 00:27:35.460 is stemming from the power, the inherent power of the legislature. 530 00:27:35.900 --> 00:27:38.700 to make those appropriations and establish that there is a 531 00:27:38.740 --> 00:27:41.059 White House at all, for instance. 532 00:27:42.519 --> 00:27:42.779 Okay. 533 00:27:42.819 --> 00:27:45.119 Please do drop your questions into the Q & A. 534 00:27:45.160 --> 00:27:48.400 We will get to those very soon. Let's entertain the hypothetical. 535 00:27:48.539 --> 00:27:51.599 Let's assume that what the president is saying is what 536 00:27:51.619 --> 00:27:55.130 he initially said is true. This is fake news. These 537 00:27:55.230 --> 00:27:59.329 are intentionally negative stories that are being put out by 538 00:27:59.369 --> 00:28:02.789 these outlets. Would that itself be a valid basis? 539 00:28:03.410 --> 00:28:03.930 First Amendment. 540 00:28:04.299 --> 00:28:07.559 Wise, let's assume the first movement of lies and the 541 00:28:07.599 --> 00:28:10.720 president's assertion that this is a free speech, this is 542 00:28:10.740 --> 00:28:11.339 fake news, right? 543 00:28:11.359 --> 00:28:13.799 This is a pre-press, this is fake news. Would that 544 00:28:14.559 --> 00:28:15.079 pass muster? 545 00:28:15.099 --> 00:28:19.000 I mean, the first amendment purist in me says, no, 546 00:28:19.200 --> 00:28:21.240 it doesn't matter what they'd say. And I was actually 547 00:28:21.279 --> 00:28:24.640 thinking about this a little bit before the broadcast here. 548 00:28:24.900 --> 00:28:29.140 And is there some area where reporting could be so 549 00:28:29.279 --> 00:28:34.329 shoddy or so deliberately dishonest that you can make the 550 00:28:34.430 --> 00:28:37.450 argument that it violates some sort of professionalism or decorum 551 00:28:37.490 --> 00:28:40.029 that they could take official notice of it and it 552 00:28:40.069 --> 00:28:43.029 would not necessarily be viewpoint discrimination and i may get 553 00:28:43.069 --> 00:28:45.289 kicked out of the first amendment lawyers club for this 554 00:28:45.329 --> 00:28:47.390 i think there probably is i was thinking if there 555 00:28:47.410 --> 00:28:50.049 was somebody with a hard pass or with access to 556 00:28:50.089 --> 00:28:53.150 the briefing room it was reporting that i was there 557 00:28:53.230 --> 00:28:56.509 and i saw the president having sex with underage space 558 00:28:56.589 --> 00:29:00.480 aliens And doing all of these awful things is really extreme. 559 00:29:00.559 --> 00:29:05.279 I can imagine there being outlandish enough, just completely dishonest 560 00:29:05.359 --> 00:29:10.349 reports that a court would say, no, okay, at a 561 00:29:10.369 --> 00:29:12.630 certain point, you pushed it a little bit

too far. 562 00:29:12.950 --> 00:29:14.589 I wouldn't want to go to, let's put it this way. 563 00:29:14.609 --> 00:29:19.099 I wouldn't want to be representing that reporter in court. 564 00:29:19.200 --> 00:29:22.259 That said, you are, that's just the very beginning of 565 00:29:22.279 --> 00:29:25.500 the slippery slope that goes down to what is, we 566 00:29:25.539 --> 00:29:29.059 should acknowledge that, The media does not get everything right. 567 00:29:29.319 --> 00:29:31.279 And they do have an agenda often. 568 00:29:31.579 --> 00:29:34.099 And it's clear to anybody who's watching it that often 569 00:29:34.140 --> 00:29:36.309 they are out to get somebody. Now, we think that's 570 00:29:36.650 --> 00:29:39.549 at least I think that's a legitimate. 571 00:29:39.009 --> 00:29:39.930 Area for the media. 572 00:29:40.569 --> 00:29:41.109 To be doing. 573 00:29:41.130 --> 00:29:45.799 We want them, agenda-based journalism is journalism nonetheless. But I 574 00:29:45.839 --> 00:29:49.099 do think it's, there probably is some point, I think 575 00:29:49.140 --> 00:29:53.259 it's hard to imagine that being likely to come to fruition, 576 00:29:53.299 --> 00:29:55.579 although who knows what may happen next year. 577 00:29:55.599 --> 00:29:59.240 Okay, so we have a question about, Michael, did you 578 00:29:59.259 --> 00:30:01.180 have a response to that? 579 00:30:02.920 --> 00:30:04.960 I would just say that there's a lot of work 580 00:30:05.000 --> 00:30:08.599 being done by the pretext and the distrust of the 581 00:30:08.660 --> 00:30:12.390 president's motives here. If you just consider, again, the letters 582 00:30:12.430 --> 00:30:14.829 that they gave notice to these three groups when they 583 00:30:15.490 --> 00:30:18.789 had their access revoked, it talks about publishing sensitive or 584 00:30:18.829 --> 00:30:24.180 classified information. That's literally a crime the First Amendment doesn't support, 585 00:30:24.420 --> 00:30:29.299 and reporters aren't special. If they're violating... the laws that 586 00:30:29.319 --> 00:30:33.369 restrict access to national security sensitive information, I think it's 587 00:30:33.380 --> 00:30:36.509 an absolutely legitimate basis to take away any sort of 588 00:30:36.569 --> 00:30:40.210 government access or pass on that basis. Now, obviously, the 589 00:30:40.250 --> 00:30:44.130 courts have found that there were other reasons or motivations 590 00:30:44.279 --> 00:30:46.599 that are in the mix. But in terms of the 591 00:30:46.640 --> 00:30:49.180 stated motivations, yeah, there are limits to what you can 592 00:30:49.220 --> 00:30:52.240 do in terms of free speech and be protected for 593 00:30:52.279 --> 00:30:52.640 doing it. 594 00:30:53.519 --> 00:30:55.539 The letters, so I looked at the letters before this, 595 00:30:55.940 --> 00:30:59.599 and they do come up with a number of arguably 596 00:30:59.640 --> 00:31:03.940 national security-related justifications, but some of them are

quite old. 597 00:31:03.980 --> 00:31:06.440 There's ones that go back to 2025, which sort of 598 00:31:06.460 --> 00:31:08.160 brings up the question of why now? 599 00:31:08.220 --> 00:31:10.650 What was it that happened just now to make this happen? 600 00:31:10.670 --> 00:31:13.539 And then you've got, again, this problem where they're mixing it, 601 00:31:13.630 --> 00:31:17.750 the letter to Politico has a complaint that this month 602 00:31:17.890 --> 00:31:21.470 they relied on unnamed sources to paint the Republican midterm 603 00:31:21.490 --> 00:31:25.150 convention in Dallas as a disaster when media reporting showed 604 00:31:25.190 --> 00:31:28.119 that the convention had over 100 million livestream views. I 605 00:31:28.160 --> 00:31:30.740 don't see any way to understand that other than as 606 00:31:30.960 --> 00:31:35.519 a simple... disagreement, like a difference of opinion over what 607 00:31:35.579 --> 00:31:38.690 constitutes a disaster, etc. That doesn't strike me as being 608 00:31:39.069 --> 00:31:43.089 something that would be unprofessional and certainly not risky in 609 00:31:43.150 --> 00:31:44.130 a recognizable way. 610 00:31:44.170 --> 00:31:45.809 But there it is in the letter to Politico. 611 00:31:46.609 --> 00:31:48.609 Yeah, the way that Judge Kelly talks about it, too, 612 00:31:48.690 --> 00:31:52.640 is you had the letters would basically say you've compromised 613 00:31:52.680 --> 00:31:59.079 national security. And also engaged in dishonest reporting, right? 614 00:31:59.529 --> 00:32:01.250 And so you're left with, which is it, right? 615 00:32:01.269 --> 00:32:05.009 If it's just the national security basis and there is 616 00:32:05.089 --> 00:32:08.410 a road for that, when you have two answers and 617 00:32:08.450 --> 00:32:10.799 it's a choose your own adventure, which of the two 618 00:32:10.819 --> 00:32:12.619 you get to use is when you have like the 619 00:32:12.650 --> 00:32:15.380 list and it's, there are all kinds of bases for 620 00:32:15.420 --> 00:32:18.200 which we can deny your permit. And then, and some 621 00:32:18.220 --> 00:32:20.839 of them are very explicit, but then at the end it's, 622 00:32:21.279 --> 00:32:22.440 or anything else we choose. 623 00:32:22.519 --> 00:32:22.740 Okay. 624 00:32:22.799 --> 00:32:24.839 I just negated everything else you just said, right? We 625 00:32:24.880 --> 00:32:26.920 don't have. So I think that's probably part of it. 626 00:32:26.920 --> 00:32:27.559 The due process. 627 00:32:28.200 --> 00:32:32.279 Decision may help us here because to the extent that 628 00:32:32.299 --> 00:32:34.619 they are given notice, have to go through a process, 629 00:32:34.960 --> 00:32:37.559 and then we end up with the same conclusion, then 630 00:32:37.579 --> 00:32:41.140 it'll probably be more on paper that this is the basis, 631 00:32:41.359 --> 00:32:44.259 this is the rationale, and then we can evaluate it 632 00:32:44.299 --> 00:32:46.619 from there. Clay asked a question, and I think we 633 00:32:46.680 --> 00:32:49.500 have answered this question a couple of times, but I 634 00:32:49.539 --> 00:32:50.680 wanted to point it out because I. 635 00:32:50.640 --> 00:32:53.059 Think it continues to come back up, right? 636 00:32:53.420 --> 00:32:56.200 I think when we talked about this before, this privilege 637 00:32:56.240 --> 00:33:00.640 versus a right, Clay Halverson is describing it as dancing 638 00:33:00.660 --> 00:33:04.410 around the core issue. Do you have a right for 639 00:33:04.450 --> 00:33:08.230 the press to be present? I think the answer to that, Robert, 640 00:33:08.289 --> 00:33:10.130 at least from your perspective, and Michael may have a 641 00:33:10.170 --> 00:33:13.349 different perspective on that, but I think the answer from 642 00:33:13.710 --> 00:33:18.480 Robert was basically that you could shut down, the president 643 00:33:18.500 --> 00:33:22.259 could decide, I don't want anyone on. 644 00:33:22.259 --> 00:33:27.059 White House grounds at all other than my family, period. 645 00:33:27.440 --> 00:33:27.960 End of sentence. 646 00:33:28.380 --> 00:33:28.559 Right. 647 00:33:28.960 --> 00:33:29.599 He could do that. 648 00:33:29.619 --> 00:33:33.980 He could exclude everybody from the White House altogether. The 649 00:33:34.029 --> 00:33:34.650 question is, all. 650 00:33:34.609 --> 00:33:38.029 Right, well, when you when you are making. 651 00:33:37.750 --> 00:33:41.609 A decision based on presumptively for this purpose, the viewpoint 652 00:33:41.849 --> 00:33:44.130 of the people involved, can you do that? 653 00:33:44.269 --> 00:33:44.450 Right. 654 00:33:44.869 --> 00:33:48.190 Is that sort of a fair understanding of your perspective? 655 00:33:48.589 --> 00:33:50.380 Robert and Michael, I'll let you respond to that as well. 656 00:33:51.039 --> 00:33:51.799 Yeah, I think so. 657 00:33:51.900 --> 00:33:54.660 And we see that sort of strain going through first 658 00:33:54.779 --> 00:33:57.690 amendment law. That's in Sherrill, but I'm thinking of a 659 00:33:57.930 --> 00:34:00.650 case much more recent. It's similar in some ways, the 660 00:34:00.769 --> 00:34:04.720 Mattal versus Tam case. which was about if the government 661 00:34:04.829 --> 00:34:08.730 is going to give you a trademark, do they have 662 00:34:08.769 --> 00:34:11.849 the discretion to say, well, they're not going to give 663 00:34:11.869 --> 00:34:14.239 you a trademark for disparaging marks? 664 00:34:14.260 --> 00:34:15.980 This was about a band. 665 00:34:16.039 --> 00:34:17.940 It was a group of Asian Americans who had a 666 00:34:17.960 --> 00:34:20.739 band called The Slants, but they couldn't get a federal 667 00:34:20.800 --> 00:34:24.409 trademark on it because- The trademark office decided that was 668 00:34:24.550 --> 00:34:29.730 a disparaging mark, and the Supreme Court ultimately overturned that 669 00:34:29.789 --> 00:34:33.530 restriction on disparaging marks. And I think the

general principle 670 00:34:33.570 --> 00:34:36.610 there is if the government is going to give something 671 00:34:37.030 --> 00:34:41.030 to a class more generally or make something available to 672 00:34:41.070 --> 00:34:43.309 a class, whether you want to call it a right, privilege, 673 00:34:43.349 --> 00:34:46.590 something else, the important thing is they're not allowed to 674 00:34:46.610 --> 00:34:51.710 then discriminate based on somebody's viewpoint. 675 00:34:52.320 --> 00:34:55.389 In order to take back that grant from them. 676 00:34:55.469 --> 00:34:59.630 It's this idea that you've got an interest in being 677 00:34:59.710 --> 00:35:03.070 treated equally to other people who are similarly situated. And 678 00:35:03.110 --> 00:35:05.030 I think it is important to try to hold the 679 00:35:05.070 --> 00:35:07.869 line on that. If not, I think there's all kinds, 680 00:35:07.909 --> 00:35:11.630 the amount of mischief that government at all levels could 681 00:35:11.670 --> 00:35:14.679 get up to is just absolutely astronomical. 682 00:35:16.559 --> 00:35:18.179 Yeah, you got the, we do have this kind of 683 00:35:18.280 --> 00:35:21.099 series of this kind of right versus a privilege debate. 684 00:35:21.579 --> 00:35:25.059 conversation throughout the law, you've got decisions. All of the 685 00:35:25.099 --> 00:35:29.500 public employee cases, for example, you have virtually no right 686 00:35:29.599 --> 00:35:32.179 to a government job of any kind, but you can't 687 00:35:32.199 --> 00:35:35.360 be denied those jobs in many cases based on your 688 00:35:35.400 --> 00:35:39.119 views or exercise another constitutional and protected right in many cases. 689 00:35:39.820 --> 00:35:42.260 You've even got cases, I think, from the 90s where 690 00:35:42.619 --> 00:35:44.420 people had contracts with city government. 691 00:35:44.599 --> 00:35:46.780 Yeah, I was going to bring that up. And they 692 00:35:46.820 --> 00:35:49.780 had written a letter to the editor, I think. 693 00:35:49.840 --> 00:35:51.989 And yeah, you get some of these cases where, You 694 00:35:52.030 --> 00:35:55.269 have absolutely no right to a contract with city government, 695 00:35:55.309 --> 00:35:57.769 but if city government cancels the contract because they saw 696 00:35:57.809 --> 00:35:59.590 an op-ed you wrote and they don't like the op-ed, 697 00:36:00.170 --> 00:36:02.559 that's where the first vote potentially comes in, right? So 698 00:36:02.599 --> 00:36:04.920 it's the exact same kind, in my mind anyway, the 699 00:36:04.960 --> 00:36:09.619 same kind of conflict. I think it's important because it's 700 00:36:09.659 --> 00:36:13.059 a totally different conversation if you're talking about the press 701 00:36:13.099 --> 00:36:15.429 in a public park, right, where they have a right 702 00:36:15.489 --> 00:36:17.829 to be there just period, and the president says, I 703 00:36:17.869 --> 00:36:20.809 ban you from public parks. That's a whole separate thing. 704 00:36:21.400 --> 00:36:23.139 But even if you don't have a right to be somewhere, 705 00:36:23.199 --> 00:36:26.820 if it's for an express, the question, is there an 706 00:36:26.980 --> 00:36:29.980 unconstitutional basis for the decision that. 707 00:36:29.880 --> 00:36:31.599 You could otherwise make for valid reasons? 708 00:36:32.380 --> 00:36:33.780 Michael, I'm going to come back to you on this 709 00:36:33.860 --> 00:36:36.139 because a lot of people have pointed out that you 710 00:36:36.199 --> 00:36:39.969 have both the Obama and Biden administrations that have made 711 00:36:40.289 --> 00:36:44.110 all kinds or made other decisions about restricting press access, 712 00:36:44.269 --> 00:36:47.929 either temporarily or not, for Fox News and other outlets 713 00:36:48.369 --> 00:36:51.760 over time. and have basically compared these and said, look, 714 00:36:52.260 --> 00:36:56.260 this is, there's a, it's, if nothing else, it's a, 715 00:36:56.269 --> 00:36:58.170 if it's good for the goose, good for the gander 716 00:36:58.630 --> 00:37:01.829 kind of situation. But if you had thoughts on sort 717 00:37:01.869 --> 00:37:04.090 of what kind of led us to this moment in 718 00:37:04.150 --> 00:37:08.820 terms of from the Trump administration's perspective anyway, the decisions 719 00:37:08.860 --> 00:37:11.239 made by prior administrations. 720 00:37:10.880 --> 00:37:11.599 In the same thing. 721 00:37:13.260 --> 00:37:16.679 Yeah, the factual circumstances varied quite a bit. I can't 722 00:37:16.760 --> 00:37:19.400 say When I never had the opportunity to be a 723 00:37:19.440 --> 00:37:23.800 First Amendment press right practitioner, despite being at the first 724 00:37:23.840 --> 00:37:26.800 and 14th law firm, I typically have other First Amendment cases. 725 00:37:27.000 --> 00:37:30.469 But I was surprised reading up on how varied the 726 00:37:30.489 --> 00:37:33.889 circumstances are. And some of the press lose these cases 727 00:37:33.969 --> 00:37:37.269 about their right to access or the restrictions. Some of 728 00:37:37.289 --> 00:37:41.429 them prevail. An interesting change came from the AP case 729 00:37:41.449 --> 00:37:44.960 that we haven't talked about, which is I learned that 730 00:37:45.059 --> 00:37:48.599 typically the White House Correspondents Association actually picked who was 731 00:37:48.639 --> 00:37:50.760 going to be in the traveling press pool, the subset 732 00:37:50.780 --> 00:37:54.139 of 20 people. The Trump administration changed that, and now 733 00:37:54.179 --> 00:37:57.409 it is the administration directly picking who gets to be 734 00:37:57.449 --> 00:37:59.489 in that group of 20. And that's actually what allowed 735 00:37:59.530 --> 00:38:03.650 them to kick out the Associated Press for the Gulf 736 00:38:03.690 --> 00:38:07.489 of America issue. And that decision to change who decides 737 00:38:07.690 --> 00:38:10.210 to be in the role of 20 has not really 738 00:38:10.250 -->

00:38:13.670 been challenge that I think will probably be continued in 739 00:38:13.710 --> 00:38:18.659 the future in terms of different administrations control the access 740 00:38:19.579 --> 00:38:21.900 in different ways is the point behind that. And even 741 00:38:21.920 --> 00:38:27.460 that 1,000 hard press passes, ironically, the White House declines 742 00:38:27.519 --> 00:38:30.079 to have any mechanism to determine whether you're part of 743 00:38:30.099 --> 00:38:33.400 a legitimate bona fide media operation. And so they have 744 00:38:33.519 --> 00:38:37.599 outsourced that, get this, to the Supreme Court Press Gallery 745 00:38:37.659 --> 00:38:40.619 and the House and Senate Press Gallery. And so if 746 00:38:40.739 --> 00:38:42.860 one of the other branches of government has decided you 747 00:38:42.900 --> 00:38:46.039 work for a legitimate media outfit, then you could apply 748 00:38:46.059 --> 00:38:50.139 to get one of these 100,000 or so hard press passes. 749 00:38:50.199 --> 00:38:53.300 So I think there's going to continue to be conflict 750 00:38:53.340 --> 00:38:56.510 between the press and the president. That goes back to 751 00:38:56.550 --> 00:38:59.170 the very beginning of the Republic when we had good 752 00:38:59.250 --> 00:39:03.409 old newspapers named after political parties. But I think the courts... 753 00:39:03.769 --> 00:39:07.690 are going to continue to struggle to micromanage these processes. 754 00:39:08.690 --> 00:39:10.530 Yeah, and here is a very interesting question about the 755 00:39:10.570 --> 00:39:14.750 White House Correspondents Association. And because I think for a 756 00:39:14.750 --> 00:39:17.789 lot of folks who probably practice in the separation of 757 00:39:17.829 --> 00:39:21.909 powers world, that feels private, non-delegation-y. 758 00:39:22.309 --> 00:39:22.789 If we're going to. 759 00:39:22.769 --> 00:39:26.929 Apply everything the same from the White House itself that 760 00:39:26.969 --> 00:39:29.809 we would apply in the executive branch more generally, the 761 00:39:30.039 --> 00:39:33.940 idea that you've got this really important thing like access 762 00:39:34.340 --> 00:39:37.079 to be able to follow the president, be part of 763 00:39:37.860 --> 00:39:41.619 that group, and that government is saying, well, we defer 764 00:39:41.679 --> 00:39:44.639 to a private outfit to make the determinations about who's 765 00:39:44.679 --> 00:39:47.360 qualified and who's not. I think that's no longer the 766 00:39:47.380 --> 00:39:50.340 rule during the Trump administration, but I think does seem 767 00:39:50.380 --> 00:39:53.989 to raise some questions there about, you know, could very 768 00:39:54.030 --> 00:39:58.550 well just be viewpoint discrimination, but delegated to a private 769 00:39:58.590 --> 00:40:01.750 outfit to do the viewpoint discrimination, right? And so that 770 00:40:01.789 --> 00:40:05.969 would be sort of its own separate problem. Scott Blackburn asked, basically, 771 00:40:05.989 --> 00:40:09.860 if you have a retaliation kind of framework for this, 772 00:40:10.099 --> 00:40:14.300 if the concern is that the decision is based on 773 00:40:14.539 --> 00:40:18.889 a retaliation framework, does that lead you to a worse outcome? 774 00:40:20.090 --> 00:40:23.590 place for press protection in the long term, because, and 775 00:40:23.630 --> 00:40:25.400 maybe you can kind of tie this together, there are 776 00:40:25.440 --> 00:40:27.679 probably a number of ways that the president could have 777 00:40:27.739 --> 00:40:32.380 achieved what he was trying to achieve here without being 778 00:40:32.440 --> 00:40:34.440 quite so direct about it. And then it's a lot 779 00:40:34.460 --> 00:40:38.469 more difficult to be able to demonstrate the retaliation, right? 780 00:40:38.489 --> 00:40:39.719 If you assume there is a person who has a 781 00:40:39.760 --> 00:40:43.030 problem here, the president has been very helpful in saying, 782 00:40:43.530 --> 00:40:46.210 I don't want them here because of their reporting. Are 783 00:40:46.250 --> 00:40:48.949 we actually in a better place if it's a lot 784 00:40:48.989 --> 00:40:51.320 less clear and obvious what's going on. 785 00:40:51.880 --> 00:40:53.039 Robert, your thoughts on that? 786 00:40:53.420 --> 00:40:56.150 I think it is a legitimate concern and that it's 787 00:40:56.639 --> 00:40:58.400 part of the reason that when you get in a 788 00:40:58.500 --> 00:41:01.199 sort of arms race like this, that it's easy for 789 00:41:01.599 --> 00:41:06.119 everybody to lose. I think people who think that the 790 00:41:06.179 --> 00:41:10.460 press has been or previous presidents, they'll say, why is 791 00:41:10.480 --> 00:41:12.989 it not OK when Trump does this, but it's OK 792 00:41:13.030 --> 00:41:15.349 when other presidents do this in more clever ways? I 793 00:41:15.389 --> 00:41:17.889 think the first answer is it actually isn't OK. We 794 00:41:17.929 --> 00:41:20.949 should be we should be willing to say no. That 795 00:41:20.989 --> 00:41:23.550 was also wrong for them trying to be locking out 796 00:41:23.590 --> 00:41:26.000 Fox News, but if they are getting more clever about it, 797 00:41:26.000 --> 00:41:30.119 I think this does encourage that sort of cleverness. That said, 798 00:41:30.139 --> 00:41:36.110 I think it's probably asking too much of the courts 799 00:41:36.210 --> 00:41:39.829 and the law and just generally people feeling like there's 800 00:41:39.889 --> 00:41:43.710 credibility in the law meaning what it says if you 801 00:41:43.769 --> 00:41:47.110 have the evidence out there that is so hard to 802 00:41:47.190 --> 00:41:49.829 ignore i'm doing this because i do not like your 803 00:41:49.889 --> 00:41:53.409 viewpoint it's hard to say even if on a cosmic 804 00:41:53.429 --> 00:41:57.130 level you can imagine that openness being better if we 805 00:41:57.190 --> 00:42:00.550 are going to say that's the wrong way to be 806

00:42:00.570 --> 00:42:03.840 i think it It makes sense that courts are going 807 00:42:03.860 --> 00:42:06.500 to take notice of the evidence when it's there. And 808 00:42:06.559 --> 00:42:09.159 I do think, to be clear, I think that previous 809 00:42:09.179 --> 00:42:12.780 administrations have been much more, quote unquote, clever about the 810 00:42:12.820 --> 00:42:15.019 way that they have controlled access to the press. 811 00:42:15.539 --> 00:42:17.659 And that just, I think, President Trump. 812 00:42:17.469 --> 00:42:21.170 Is unusual in that he does not seem to be 813 00:42:21.250 --> 00:42:23.869 inclined that way and likes to just come out and 814 00:42:24.110 --> 00:42:26.789 say what other people might be doing a little bit 815 00:42:26.849 --> 00:42:29.869 more surreptitiously. Could it lead us to a point where, yeah, 816 00:42:29.889 --> 00:42:32.639 there's no press access? Yeah, but you've also got the 817 00:42:32.679 --> 00:42:35.539 checks and balances of the fact that if there's any 818 00:42:35.780 --> 00:42:39.050 president who has a more of a symbiotic relationship with 819 00:42:39.070 --> 00:42:41.969 the press, in some ways, it's President Trump. He interacts 820 00:42:41.989 --> 00:42:45.170 with the press far more than President Biden, for instance. 821 00:42:45.329 --> 00:42:47.969 And you get the sense sometimes that they love having 822 00:42:48.010 --> 00:42:50.190 each other to hammer on. And the idea that any 823 00:42:50.250 --> 00:42:52.429 president would say, I'm not going to be, I'm going 824 00:42:52.449 --> 00:42:54.659 to eliminate everyone from the White House and therefore be 825 00:42:54.679 --> 00:42:58.039 in the news less, even though I would as a conservative, 826 00:42:58.059 --> 00:43:00.039 would kind of like to hear about the president less. 827 00:43:00.099 --> 00:43:03.630 I think that's probably unlikely to happen anytime in the 828 00:43:03.670 --> 00:43:04.570 foreseeable future. 829 00:43:05.110 --> 00:43:07.070 Yeah, he's not exactly Calvin Coolidge, right? 830 00:43:07.110 --> 00:43:09.670 You can't imagine President Trump just sliding off into the 831 00:43:09.690 --> 00:43:12.010 background and excluding the press. 832 00:43:11.969 --> 00:43:14.300 And quietly doing things in the White House. 833 00:43:14.320 --> 00:43:16.059 There is a relationship there. 834 00:43:16.559 --> 00:43:19.440 Okay, we've got maybe time for, again, drop your questions. 835 00:43:19.500 --> 00:43:21.760 If you have them, I'll ask one more and then 836 00:43:22.000 --> 00:43:24.059 see if we have others that have popped up. But 837 00:43:24.550 --> 00:43:27.989 Donald Kroll, I think, asks, is judicial enforceability one way 838 00:43:28.030 --> 00:43:31.010 to think about drawing the line here? It certainly seems 839 00:43:31.090 --> 00:43:34.380 like a lot of the, you could have, again, viewpoint 840 00:43:34.400 --> 00:43:38.599 discrimination in context where, but the court just can't fix that. 841

00:43:38.699 --> 00:43:41.139 A court can give you back a press badge and 842 00:43:41.199 --> 00:43:43.880 a spot in a room full of people. It can't, 843 00:43:44.760 --> 00:43:47.340 very unlikely that a court is going to grant the 844 00:43:47.380 --> 00:43:50.869 TRO ordering the president or the White House press secretary 845 00:43:50.909 --> 00:43:52.809 to call on you or to sit for an interview 846 00:43:53.050 --> 00:43:54.530 or to give you a spot on Air Force One. 847 00:43:55.010 --> 00:43:58.070 Maybe the same viewpoint discrimination question, but it may be 848 00:43:58.690 --> 00:44:01.570 just a question of judicial authority. 849 00:44:01.989 --> 00:44:03.980 And so how do you think about that, Michael? 850 00:44:05.739 --> 00:44:07.980 Trump administration tried to frame this as a bit of 851 00:44:08.019 --> 00:44:11.579 a political question, I think, getting at the same issue. I've, 852 00:44:11.800 --> 00:44:14.639 in this presentation, called it micromanaging the White House, but 853 00:44:14.739 --> 00:44:16.440 they're all talking about the same thing. The courts won't 854 00:44:16.559 --> 00:44:19.889 enjoin the president directly. but that's a super easy solution. 855 00:44:19.909 --> 00:44:22.969 You just name Susie Wiles, problem solved. Everybody does the 856 00:44:23.050 --> 00:44:26.849 case the same way. I do think this case is, 857 00:44:26.989 --> 00:44:30.780 for First Amendment purposes, is just different because it's at 858 00:44:30.820 --> 00:44:33.780 the White House, and maybe some purists will say that 859 00:44:34.239 --> 00:44:36.400 this is an unfair way to draw the line. But look, 860 00:44:37.000 --> 00:44:39.039 I don't hear anybody out there saying the First Amendment 861 00:44:39.079 --> 00:44:41.590 compels the president to sit down with a particular reporter. 862 00:44:41.619 --> 00:44:44.530 So we all have that to start from. You get 863 00:44:44.550 --> 00:44:46.650 to the press pool of 20, the next biggest set, 864 00:44:47.289 --> 00:44:49.280 the The courts at least temporarily have sided with the 865 00:44:49.300 --> 00:44:52.139 president on that. That's a small set. More people seem 866 00:44:52.159 --> 00:44:54.179 to be willing to say, yeah, the president can pick 867 00:44:54.679 --> 00:44:57.920 who he wants there. Both sides cited Theodore Roosevelt. It 868 00:44:57.940 --> 00:45:03.260 was a WWTD situation. And because Theodore Roosevelt initiated the 869 00:45:03.300 --> 00:45:05.349 press for him in the White House, but he also 870 00:45:05.389 --> 00:45:08.449 initiated the practice of having his handpicked favorite press come 871 00:45:08.469 --> 00:45:10.809 during his shaving hour in the middle of the day. 872 00:45:10.829 --> 00:45:13.010 And this is recounted in the government brief in this case. 873 00:45:13.070 --> 00:45:16.090 It's a colorful story. And so he was using the 874 00:45:16.110 --> 00:45:19.980 power to pick people. press based on viewpoint to his advantage. 875 00:45:20.659 --> 00:45:22.849 And I just think the cases that involve the White 876 00:45:22.889 --> 00:45:25.210 House have to be different. This is not Trinity Lutheran. 877 00:45:25.230 --> 00:45:28.130 It's not a generally available government benefit that you have 878 00:45:28.150 --> 00:45:32.449 a right to. And I don't think that John Adams 879 00:45:32.550 --> 00:45:35.840 or James Madison are turning to their grave because Politico 880 00:45:35.880 --> 00:45:38.920 doesn't have one of the 100 hard passes to have 881 00:45:38.960 --> 00:45:42.440 a better background for their reporting. I just, I don't 882 00:45:42.500 --> 00:45:45.460 think it is the end of the First Amendment to 883 00:45:45.519 --> 00:45:46.440 have what's happened here. 884 00:45:47.929 --> 00:45:50.590 Robert, I'll give you a last word. Looks like we 885 00:45:51.010 --> 00:45:51.750 are out of questions. 886 00:45:52.809 --> 00:45:55.889 Yeah, I think that there is some extent to which 887 00:45:55.949 --> 00:46:01.269 this is a sort of made-for-media contretemps, and it presents 888 00:46:01.690 --> 00:46:05.670 a lot of this ability to caricature both sides. Is 889 00:46:05.690 --> 00:46:07.110 it going to be the end of the world? Will 890 00:46:07.130 --> 00:46:10.699 we not have any media coverage If the White House 891 00:46:10.760 --> 00:46:14.619 is entirely closed to reporters, if the worst happens in 892 00:46:14.659 --> 00:46:17.519 that sense of openness. And I think the answer is no. Obviously, 893 00:46:17.559 --> 00:46:20.440 we'll still have plenty of media coverage, etc. But will 894 00:46:20.480 --> 00:46:23.000 something be lost if we do that? And is something 895 00:46:23.059 --> 00:46:26.980 lost when we decrease the sort of overall openness and 896 00:46:27.019 --> 00:46:31.130 transparency in the media? access to these areas, I think yes. 897 00:46:31.210 --> 00:46:34.030 And I think that we ought to be very cautious 898 00:46:34.309 --> 00:46:38.389 about the power we want to give federal officials to 899 00:46:38.489 --> 00:46:42.559 make those decisions based solely on the viewpoint that they 900 00:46:42.579 --> 00:46:42.980 don't like. 901 00:46:44.960 --> 00:46:45.239 All right. 902 00:46:45.280 --> 00:46:47.820 Well, thank you very much, Emma. The floor is back 903 00:46:47.860 --> 00:46:49.760 to you. But thank you both for joining us. And 904 00:46:49.780 --> 00:46:51.380 thanks to everyone. 905 00:46:51.030 --> 00:46:51.489 For being here. 906 00:46:52.440 --> 00:46:55.699 Thanks, Casey. And on behalf of the Federalist Society, thank 907 00:46:55.940 --> 00:46:57.340 all of you. I want to thank all of our 908 00:46:57.380 --> 00:47:00.679 experts for sharing their time and their expertise with us today. 909 00:47:00.780 --> 00:47:04.230 We really especially appreciate you joining us on fairly short 910 00:47:04.289 --> 00:47:07.829 notice to discuss such a timely and rapidly evolving issue 911 00:47:08.349 --> 00:47:11.030 and for helping us to make sense of the latest developments. 912 00:47:11.579 --> 00:47:14.119 Thank you also to our audience for joining us and 913 00:47:14.159 --> 00:47:17.260 for your thoughtful participation. If you have any feedback, we 914 00:47:17.280 --> 00:47:22.039 always welcome it by email at fedsocforums at fedsoc.org. As always, 915 00:47:22.059 --> 00:47:24.280 we ask that you please keep an eye on our 916 00:47:24.320 --> 00:47:27.460 website and on your inboxes for any announcements about upcoming 917 00:47:27.500 --> 00:47:30.570 virtual events. Thank you all for joining us today. We 918 00:47:30.610 --> 00:47:32.809 really appreciate your time. And with that, we are adjourned. 919 00:47:33.349 --> 00:47:37.130 Thanks for listening to FedSoc Forums, a Federalist Society podcast. 920 00:47:37.510 --> 00:47:40.030 Be sure to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts so 921 00:47:40.070 --> 00:47:44.260 you won't miss an episode. To learn more, visit our website, fedsoc.org.