Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich
25-5109
| D.C. Cir. | Jul 22, 2025Background
- The Associated Press (AP) was excluded from the Oval Office and other restricted White House spaces after refusing to adopt the President's preferred term "Gulf of America" instead of "Gulf of Mexico" in its Stylebook.
- The AP filed suit, alleging viewpoint discrimination and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
- The district court granted an injunction, prohibiting the Government from excluding AP based on its viewpoint when other press pool members had access.
- An emergency panel of the D.C. Circuit partially stayed the district court's injunction pending appeal.
- The Government petitioned for rehearing en banc; the petition was denied, with a concurrence raising reservations but finding en banc review standards unmet.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viewpoint Discrimination in Press Access | Exclusion based on AP's language use is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination | The President can set press access criteria, and events are more like private interviews | District court's injunction partially stayed; no en banc review granted |
| First Amendment Retaliation | Government action is retaliation for protected speech | Government had discretion over access and did not retaliate | District court emphasized viewpoint discrimination; panel partially stayed injunction |
| Applicability of Forum Analysis | Forum analysis applies to communicative activity in public events | Oval Office is unique government space, not subject to full forum analysis | District court bound by precedent to apply forum analysis |
| Standard for En Banc Review | Error below justifies full court review | No precedential or exceptional circumstances | Denial: panel's nonprecedential order does not warrant en banc review |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educator’s Association, 460 U.S. 37 (forum analysis applies to government exclusion of journalists based on viewpoint)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (plurality opinion) (viewpoint-based restrictions on political speech are highly suspect)
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (government cannot compel political speech or punish dissenting viewpoints)
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (government may not compel speech of individuals or entities on political matters)
- Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S. 878 (First Amendment prohibits government from compelling political speech)