404 F.Supp.3d 203
D.D.C.2019Background
- Brian Karem, a White House correspondent, engaged in a brief, widely‑recorded verbal altercation with a White House guest (Sebastian Gorka) and others at a July 11, 2019 Rose Garden event. Videos show back‑and‑forth insults, a thumb gesture, and a short follow‑on interaction in the Palm Room.
- On August 2, 2019 White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham sent a preliminary letter proposing a 30‑day suspension of Karem’s long‑term White House "hard pass," citing a "widely shared understanding" that reporters must act professionally and not provoke confrontations.
- Karem responded, met with Grisham’s office, and submitted additional materials; on August 16 Grisham issued a final decision immediately suspending the pass for 30 days as a sanction to deter disruptive behavior.
- Karem sued, alleging Fifth Amendment due process and independent First Amendment claims, and moved for a TRO/preliminary injunction to restore his hard pass while the case proceeds.
- The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding Karem likely to succeed on a due process (vagueness/fair‑notice) challenge and that suspension inflicted irreparable First Amendment harm; it ordered restoration of the hard pass pending litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness / fair notice whether hard pass suspension could be imposed for July 11 conduct | Karem: No explicit, published standard existed before the incident; punishment was punitive and reporters lacked fair notice | Defs: Prior "Acosta" letter and references to "professional norms" put reporters on notice that unprofessional conduct could lead to suspension | Court: Likely for Karem — prior guidance was ambiguous and "professionalism"/"norms" were too vague to give fair notice for punishment at that event |
| Procedural due process (adequacy of notice and opportunity to respond) | Karem: Even if notice was given, process was insufficient because standards were not published and opportunity to contest was limited | Defs: Karem received preliminary and final letters, met with counsel, and submitted materials | Court: Focused on vagueness as dispositive at this stage; did not rest relief solely on procedural defects but followed Sherrill requiring meaningful standards and process |
| Irreparable harm from suspension | Karem: Loss of hard pass substantially and immediately impairs First Amendment newsgathering rights; harm is unrecoverable and time‑sensitive | Defs: Injury is merely procedural and potentially remedied later | Court: Agreed with Karem — loss of First Amendment access constitutes irreparable harm warranting injunction |
| Balance of equities & public interest in restoring access | Karem: Constitutional interests outweigh White House interest in immediate enforcement; delayed enforcement would still deter | Defs: Court‑ordered access is intrusive; White House must control security and decorum | Court: Equities and public interest favor Karem given constitutional rights and the White House’s delayed enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (reporters have First Amendment liberty interest in White House hard passes; standards must be articulated and process provided)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012) (fair‑notice/vagueness principle for punitive or regulatory sanctions)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions and limits on sliding‑scale analysis)
- League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (elements required for preliminary injunction in D.C. Circuit)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury)