CNN’s lawsuit over the Trump administration’s yanking of reporter Jim Acosta’s White House press pass after he repeatedly challenged the president and brushed an aide at a press conference could be headed to the Supreme Court, according to legal analyst and leading talk radio host Mark Levin.
While he feels the courts should stay out of the Trump-CNN war, Levin saw significance in the cable network’s hiring of an established Supreme Court litigator, Ted Olson.
Levin, chairman of the board of Landmark Legal Foundation, called the suit “ridiculous,” but told Secrets that it “could” end up before the high court if it gets the green light from a liberal judge appointed by Presidents Obama or Clinton.
In a Facebook post, he wrote, “I just read CNN’s lawsuit against the administration over Jim Acosta. It’s a very weak case, but if they get before an Obama or Clinton district judge, who knows.”
He noted that there is no constitutional right to a “hard pass,” and that the case should end over that alone. But in hiring Olson, Levin added, the network is playing a political game that could end up in the Supreme Court.
“CNN hired Ted Olson’s firm, and he has signed onto the lawsuit. Olson was hired for a few reasons: 1. As a former Reagan official and lawyer for Bush in Bush-Gore, CNN hopes to make the PR case that this a bipartisan matter; 2. CNN hopes to make the PR case that it is upholding the Constitution against a rogue administration; and, 3. CNN has employed a top Supreme Court litigator,” wrote Levin.
His full note:
I just read CNN’s lawsuit against the administration over Jim Acosta. It’s a very weak case, but if they get before an Obama or Clinton district judge, who knows. CNN hired Ted Olson’s firm, and he has signed onto the lawsuit. Olson was hired for a few reasons: 1. As a former Reagan official and lawyer for Bush in Bush-Gore, CNN hopes to make the PR case that this a bipartisan matter; 2. CNN hopes to make the PR case that it is upholding the Constitution against a rogue administration; and, 3. CNN has employed a top Supreme Court litigator.
Nonetheless, it is a ridiculous suit. CNN still has reporters at the White House and in the presidential press conferences; Acosta does not have a constitutional right to be physically present in the press room, anymore than the scores of media outlets that do not; Acosta can watch the press conference from outside the White House grounds as they are televised; the president cannot be compelled by any court to actually call on any particular reporter during a press conference; Acosta does not have a constitutional right to disrupt the press conference with his various antics anymore than any other reporter; and, a president is not constitutionally compelled to hold a presidential press conference. The courts should stay out of this on separation of powers grounds, among other things. No one is preventing Acosta from reporting or CNN from broadcasting.
