The judge's decision was not a free speech argument, but a due process one. Rights were taken away without warning, or opportunity to argue or appeal. That sounds like arbitrary executive rule.
Their right not to have punitive actions taken against them by the government for their speech, as clearly protected by the First Amendment. But you knew that.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Special access is not freedom of speech, or any media org that already wasn't allowed into the White House press briefings could be said to have had their First Amendment rights violated. But you knew that.
> We think that notice to the unsuccessful applicant of the factual bases for denial with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is indeed in furtherance of Presidential protection, rather than based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons.
Similarly, not credentialing an incidentally Jewish reporter wouldn’t be a violation. But removing their pass for being Jewish later would be.
I was always taught that the executive branch enforces the law, not interprets it. If the executive branch or legislative branches disagree with the judicial branch, then they have the responsibility to appeal or deal with it; they can't just ignore it because they disagree.
It turns out that in the end, enforcement is the only thing that matters. Written law doesn't matter, and interpretation doesn't matter, except insofar as they affect enforcement.
Perhaps the next president will wave the magic executive order wand and reduce the age of eligibility for Medicare to zero. Or something else equally spicy and very progressive. Republicans used to understand that eventually the other side will win an election and do unto you everything you have done unto them, but apparently the current crop thinks they will be ruling forever.
Contrary to popular belief, executive orders aren't laws and don't have the force of law. An executive order couldn't legally reduce the age of eligibility for Medicare.
The only reason Trump gets away with it is because Congress is complicit in the authoritarian fiction of the President's "plenary authority" even to the point of obviously illegal things like undermining budget allocations and not doing their actual jobs.
As soon as a Democrat gets in, Congress will miraculously become pedantic sticklers to the rules. This kind of corruption and blatant malfeasance is something only Republicans get away with, at least in the modern era.
With a big enough blue wave in 2026 and 2028, congress may be willing to turn a blind eye to a Democratic president doing extralegal things. I will not be shocked if this genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Throughout my life Republicans have been more creative about bending the rules, but the Democrats have reliably learned how to copy their game each time.
And SCOTUS, who deemed Biden's loan forgiveness an abuse of power, but not Trump's attempt to wipe out the entire department.
Dems keep losing, in part, because they're following the rules the other team is openly flouting. There's no real pleasant answer to that in any direction.
And I think it is entirely plausible that Dems are quickly concluding that if they continue to be the only ones following the rules, they may never win another election. I think we may be in for a rough ride.
