Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Court stays preliminary injunction forcing White House to grant access to Associated Press, (Jun 10, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

While the court granted a stay regarding the Oval Office, Air Force One, and the President’s Mar-a-Lago home, the appeals court declined to stay the part of the preliminary injunction applicable to the East Room.

The D.C. Circuit granted in part the U.S. government’s motion for a stay pending appeal in a lawsuit challenging the White House’s exclusion of the Associated Press (AP) from press events held in the Oval Office, on Air Force One, and at the President’s Mar-a-Lago home. The appeals court found that the White House is likely to succeed on the merits, as these restricted presidential spaces “are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion.” Thus, the White House has discretion to determine which journalists may be admitted.

Preliminary injunction. In February 2025, White House officials excluded the AP from the Oval Office and other restricted spaces, explaining that access was denied because the AP continued to use the name Gulf of Mexico in its stylebook, rather than President Trump’s preferred Gulf of America. The AP sued, alleging its exclusion violated the First Amendment. The district court held the AP was likely to succeed on its constitutional claims and issued a preliminary injunction against denying, on the basis of viewpoint, access to press events held in the Oval Office, on Air Force One, and at the President’s Mar-a-Lago home. That court further held that the AP’s loss of First Amendment freedoms and reporting opportunities constitutes irreparable harm that enforcement of an unconstitutional policy is contrary to the public interest.

Circuit court stay. The White House moved for emergency relief in the D.C. Circuit, seeking a stay of the district court’s injunction pending appeal. The D.C. Circuit found the White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion; thus, it retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists may be admitted. Without a stay, the government will suffer irreparable harm, the court found, as the injunction impinges on the President’s independence and control over his private workspaces. While the court granted a stay in regard to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and the President’s Mar-a-Lago home, the court declined to stay the part of the preliminary injunction applicable to the East Room, as the identified harms are less clear with respect to the East Room, which does not share the hallmarks of spaces like the Oval Office.

Dissent. Judge Pillard dissented. “The issue here is whether,” Pillard wrote, “when the White House authorizes the Press Pool to travel with the President or observe an Oval Office meeting or signing, the White House may exclude journalists or news organizations based on their expression outside the Pool of views the President disfavors. Neither this court nor the Supreme Court has ever upheld the exclusion from a forum or denial of a benefit based on a private recipient’s viewpoint outside the forum or benefit program. Because the district court correctly enjoined just such exclusion here, I see no basis for a stay pending appeal.”

The district court case is No. 1:25-cv-00532-TNM. The appeal is No. 25-5109.

Companies: Associated Press

News: IndustryNewsTrends LitigationNewsTrends WhiteHouseNews IndividualRights