Eugene Volokh
Role at the time: 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
Statement summary
In a signed post on the Volokh Conspiracy blog at Reason, law professor Eugene Volokh wrote that, according to the D.C. Circuit, the government may not exclude press outlets based on viewpoint from spaces broadly opened to the press, such as the main White House press briefing room, but may do so from spaces such as Oval Office interviews. He wrote that an exclusion resting on an objective viewpoint-neutral judgment “might be permissible,” while one based in part on disapproval of the three outlets’ perspectives or editorial judgments would likely be seen as viewpoint discrimination.
“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.”
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.
Why we used 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.