Scott Nover, The Atlantic; The Legal Precedent That Could Protect Jim Acosta’s Credentials
"The
D.C. circuit court ruled in Sherrill’s favor in 1977. While the court
did not demand that the Secret Service issue him a press credential, it
did set forth a series of new, transparent steps to ensure that no
reporter’s First Amendment rights were violated.
“Once
the government creates the kind of forum that it has created, like the
White House briefing room, it can’t selectively include or exclude
people on the basis of ideology or viewpoint,” said Ben Wizner, the
director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.
The new steps enunciated in the Sherrill
decision to ensure that reporters’ First Amendment rights are not
violated include the requirement to give the reporter notice and the
right to rebut a formal written decision, which must accompany any
revocation. “We further conclude that notice, opportunity to rebut, and a
written decision are required because the denial of a pass potentially
infringes upon First Amendment guarantees,” the court’s ruling states.
“Such impairment of this interest cannot be permitted to occur in the
absence of adequate procedural due process.”
“If
the Secret Service makes this kind of determination that they’re going
to no longer let someone have access, or limit access from the start,
there should be a really good reason for that,” Michele Kimball, a
media-law professor at George Washington University, said. “And if you
are denied that access, there should be some sort of procedural due
process for you, [so] that you can find out what happened. And it’s sort
of that check to make sure that, again, it’s being handled
evenhandedly.”"
