\n<\/p>\n
NEW YORK — <\/span>The extraordinary showdown between President Donald Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes<\/a> moves Wednesday to a courtroom in the nation\u2019s capital, where a judge<\/a> will hear arguments on whether the president\u2019s move banning three news organizations from White House grounds violates the Constitution. <\/p>\n The administration plans to double down on its contention that it has the right to decide who can set foot in the White House<\/a>. \u201cAccess to the White House is a privilege \u2014 not a right,\u201d it said in a court filing late Tuesday setting out its arguments.<\/p>\n It also argued that the reporting of the three outlets \u2014 CNN, MS NOW and Politico \u2014 poses a threat to national security. In his early comments about the case, Trump focused not on national security but on negative coverage by the outlets and allegations of \u201cfake news.\u201d<\/p>\n In the filing, administration lawyers argue that the ban does not violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to a free press. It contends that the outlets, in their reporting, violated \u201cstandards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House complex, including by trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues and publishing sensitive or classified information.\u201d<\/p>\n The administration goes on to detail letters that were sent to each outlet, which identified \u201ca non-exhaustive list of reporting incidents, including those that have threatened national security and spread falsehoods.\u201d<\/p>\n The \u201creporting incidents\u201d cited in the filing included: CNN reporting on \u201c\u2018top-secret’ construction details related to the East Wing bunker\u201d; MS NOW reporting \u201con an alleged leak investigation\u201d; and Politico publishing \u201ca document detailing funding for the White House ballroom containing intricate descriptions of how the Secret Service would invest in security improvements.\u201d<\/p>\n Further examples were given in individual letters. Politico\u2019s letter detailed six incidents of reporting, including the outlet in June citing a \u201csenior administration official \u2026 granted anonymity\u201d predicting whether a preliminary deal would end the conflict with Iran.<\/p>\n That item appeared to reference a background briefing set up by the White House, where an official briefed reporters<\/a> on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House itself. Several other outlets reported the official’s remarks. <\/p>\n Trump began to emphasize the national security argument Tuesday, when he said negative coverage was dangerous for the country. <\/p>\n \u201cI think we have a right to clean out fake news,\u201d he told reporters at the United Nations, defending the ban, which was suddenly announced Friday. The next day, journalists for the three outlets arrived at work to find their entry badges disabled. <\/p>\n On Monday, the outlets filed their joint lawsuit<\/a>, alleging they were singled out because of the content of their coverage \u2014 in other words, viewpoint discrimination. They called this a \u201cblatant violation\u201d of the First Amendment and asked the court to immediately restore their access.<\/p>\n The ban prompted other media outlets to take action in solidarity. The five-network U.S. network press pool, to which CNN belongs, decided to suspend coverage of Trump events until further notice. The Associated Press also joined a group of organizations that refrained from publishing photos of the president Monday. On Wednesday, the network pool<\/a> was again missing from a daily White House press schedule. <\/p>\n The ban and subsequent lawsuit are part of a long-running conflict between the president \u2014 especially in his second term \u2014 and media outlets he finds unfavorable. Trump has responded in the courtroom, or with regulatory action. He\u2019s also lashed out at individual reporters in personal terms. <\/p>\n The administration\u2019s filing to the court also relies on historical anecdotes to argue that a president can decide which news outlets to grant favorable treatment.<\/p>\n It says that in the early 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt \u201cbegan a practice of regularly inviting reporters into the Oval Office for off-the-record press conferences while he received his \u2018regular midday shave,\u2019\u201d and adds that Roosevelt \u201cused the conference as an occasion for reward and punishment, screening out the reporters who were the least likely to be sympathetic to his policies.\u201d<\/p>\n It also says President John F. Kennedy \u201csought to \u2018court star correspondents\u2019 and thus gave certain reporters \u2018special access\u2019 and \u2018advance notice of administration announcements.\u2019\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n