Eugene Volokh says the legality of excluding CNN, MS NOW and Politico depends on viewpoint and White House space
Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor emeritus at UCLA School of Law, in a signed post on the Volokh Conspiracy blog at Reason
“But if the exclusion is based in part on disapproval of CNN's, MS NOW's, and Politico's perspectives or editorial judgments as being unfair or unsound, that would likely be seen as viewpoint-discrimination—which, again, is unconstitutional as to the main press briefing room but constitutional as to the Oval Office.”
Source and context
Analysis
About this source
Signed blog post by Volokh on the Volokh Conspiracy at Reason (the site's author footer says his posts are his own and not endorsed by any institution). Page opened in full on 2026-09-19 about 9:10 AM EDT (HTTP 200). Page structured data gives creator Eugene Volokh and datePublished and dateModified both 2026-09-18T21:30:02+00:00; the page shows '9.18.2026 5:30 PM' (EDT). The post opens 'President Trump posted today:' above a screenshot of Trump's Truth Social post (viewed; the screenshot shows the viewer's local time, 2:04 PM, i.e. 3:04 PM EDT), then block-quotes D.C. Circuit language that the post attributes to Sherrill v. Knight; that block quote is the court's wording, not Volokh's, and is not used. The paragraph before the quoted sentence names the $8.2M Politico-subscription figure as one possible viewpoint-neutral rationale; that figure is outside the quotation and this record takes no position on it. No later Volokh post on the topic appears on the Volokh Conspiracy front page as of about 9:20 AM EDT Sept. 19.
Reporting
About this source
Opened in full on 2026-09-19 (HTTP 200); published 2026-09-18T19:40Z and updated 2026-09-19T02:12Z per the page's structured data. Used only for the context sentences (Oval Office questioning, no visible enforcement into Friday evening), not for Volokh's words.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
At 3:04 PM EDT on Sept. 18, 2026, Trump posted on Truth Social that, effective immediately, he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House as a result of their coverage, and CNN reported he later took reporters’ questions about it at an Oval Office event. Volokh’s post, published at 5:30 PM EDT, opens with a screenshot of Trump’s post and asks whether the action is constitutional.
After the quotation
CNN reported that, into Friday evening, its reporters remained in their White House workspace and there was no indication the administration had taken steps to follow through on the announcement.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Should President Trump bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over their coverage?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The case’s fixed reference point is President Trump’s announcement, by Truth Social post at 3:04 PM EDT on Sept. 18, 2026 and reaffirmed in the Oval Office that afternoon, that CNN, MS NOW and Politico are banned from the White House because of their coverage. Volokh’s words neither approve nor reject the announced exclusion: he writes that its constitutionality depends on the space (unconstitutional as to the main press briefing room, constitutional as to the Oval Office) and on whether it rests on a viewpoint-neutral judgment, which “might be permissible,” or on disapproval of the outlets’ perspectives, and he does not say which basis applies here. The closest competing label is condemns, because he says an exclusion based in part on such disapproval would likely be seen as viewpoint discrimination. That loses because the same sentence calls such an exclusion constitutional as to the Oval Office, so his conclusion turns on an express condition rather than rejecting the act.
- Recorded on
- Published here
Should President Trump bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over their coverage?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full caseMS NOW
“MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”Read statement
The White House
“The White House declined to comment further Saturday, referring NBC News to Trump’s previous comments.”Read statement
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
“When the White House opens its doors to the press, it must comply with the First Amendment. The president is as free as any other person to criticize media coverage. But he can’t ban outlets from the White House just because he doesn’t like their reporting or commentary.”Read statement