ASSOCIATED PRESS v. BUDOWICH
1:25-cv-00532
| D.D.C. | Apr 11, 2025Background
- Associated Press sued Taylor Budowich, in his official White House capacity, and others for excluding AP reporters from certain limited-access government events.
- The district court previously granted a preliminary injunction in favor of AP, finding likely First Amendment violations.
- The Government moved to stay the injunction pending appeal, arguing that enforcement should pause while the issue was reviewed by a higher court.
- The court had already temporarily stayed the injunction to allow time for appeal but was now asked to extend the stay further.
- The events in question involved high-profile locations such as the Oval Office, Air Force One, and Mar-a-Lago, where the Government claimed special privacy and security interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injunction should be stayed pending appeal | AP is likely to succeed; exclusion is unconstitutional retaliation | Government claims 'intimate spaces' merit exclusion; asserts disruption, separation-of-powers | Stay denied; Government not likely to succeed |
| Applicability of forum analysis to White House and similar spaces | These government-used spaces are nonpublic fora but still subject to First Amendment protections | Spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One are 'intimate' and thus eligible for press exclusion | Forum analysis applies; no blanket exception for 'intimate spaces' |
| First Amendment retaliation for press exclusion | AP excluded in retaliation for exercise of protected rights | Exclusion is justified by operational or security considerations | Exclusion, if retaliatory, cannot be justified; merits favor AP |
| Harm and public interest balance | AP suffers irreparable harm by exclusion | Government's interests outweigh press's interests in these settings | AP's harm outweighs Government's interests |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 988 (D.D.C. 2006) (describes high burden for stay pending appeal)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (sets four-factor test for stay pending appeal)
- Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (prohibits arbitrary or content-based criteria for press pass issuance)
- Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (retaliatory government action can be unconstitutional)
- Price v. Garland, 45 F.4th 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (government offices as nonpublic forums)