WASHINGTON (CN) — The Associated Press sued the White House on Friday for barring its reporters from press briefings at the White House and President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate to force the outlet to use the “Gulf of America” when referring to the Gulf of Mexico.
“The press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government,” the AP says. “The Constitution does not allow the government to control speech. Allowing such government control and retaliation to stand is a threat to every American’s freedom.”
The AP brought the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, to vacate the White House’s bar on its reporters and schedule an emergency hearing.
The AP names White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in the lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, the AP repeatedly tried to persuade the White House that its conduct was illegal but, having made no progress, instead turned to the court.
Upon his return to the Oval Office on Jan. 20, Trump signed an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” and Mount Denali in Alaska as “Mount McKinley,” the mountain’s federally recognized name between 1917 and 2015.
Following the order, the AP made an editorial decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico by its original name, “while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.”
On Feb. 11, the White House suddenly informed the AP that its reporters would be barred from events open to the press pool unless they used “Gulf of America,” then quickly began banning reporters within hours. On Feb. 14, the White House made the ban indefinite.
Wiles wrote in an email to the AP on Feb. 18 explaining that the AP was targeted because of the AP Stylebook and its widespread use by journalists, scholars and classrooms throughout the country.
Trump doubled down on the ban on Feb. 18, stating that the White House would “keep them out until such time that they agree that it’s the Gulf of America.”
The AP has maintained that because the stylebook is used around the world, it was important for the organization to use place names and geography that are “easily recognizable to all audiences.”
In her email, Wiles suggested that the ban could be lifted if the AP created an American version of the stylebook.
“We remain hopeful that the name of the [Gulf] will be appropriately reflected in the stylebook where American audiences are concerned,” Wiles said.
The AP argues that the ban is a clear violation of the First Amendment as retaliation based solely on the content of AP’s speech, as well as a violation of its due process rights.
The AP points to the 1977 D.C. Circuit case Sherrill v. Knight, where the appellate court held that journalists’ First Amendment interest in White House access “undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”
The D.C. Circuit ruled that the White House could not arbitrarily deny a press pass to a journalist — in that case, based solely on the Secret Service’s undisclosed recommendation that The Nation reporter Robert Sherrill’s application be denied — and ordered procedural protections be implemented.
The White House failed to follow any procedure, the AP says, giving no warning nor a formal opportunity to challenge the bar outside of adopting the White House’s preferred language.
Again citing Sherrill, the AP argues that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling requires the White House to provide a compelling reason for any access denial, which did not happen in this case.
“Rather, defendants’ actions are impermissibly based on their dislike of the content of the AP’s expression and what they perceive as the AP’s viewpoint reflected in the content of its expression,” the AP says. “The White House ban of the AP also constitutes impermissible retaliation, as it was instituted to punish the AP for its constitutionally protected speech in ways that would chill the speech of a reasonable person of ordinary firmness.”