Will The U.S. Supreme Court Hold Trump To Its Own Standard?

Pres. Donald J. Trump plans to appeal a lower court decision finding he violated the First Amendment by retaliating against the Associated Press for failing to recognize the Gulf of America.

The issue of whether the Associated Press newswire service has a First Amendment right to attend White House events is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pres. Donald J. Trump signed an executive order immediately upon taking office, changing the Gulf of Mexico’s name to Gulf of America.

A valid executive order has the force of law unless it is found to be unconstitutional, or until it is repealed by the president or a subsequent president.

Google Maps, which covers 220 countries and territories, duly made the change to Gulf of America, but not the international news agency, The Associated Press, which has news operations in 100 countries.

In a statement, the AP said Trump’s order only covers the U.S. and AP is a “global news agency that disseminates news around the world… [that] must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences.”

AP sued after Trump withdrew what was essentially his invitation to attend his press conferences and events.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden of Washington, D.C., a Trump appointee, ruled that Trump violated the First Amendment by retaliating against the AP for its exercise of free speech. He ordered Trump to allow the AP to cover Trump as before. A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Monday refused to temporarily block Judge McFadden’s order.

The AP reports that Trump plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Imperfect Vessel

The U.S. Supreme Court is not in an ideal position to criticize Trump’s decisions about whom to invite to his press events.

The Court has refused to broadcast its hearings since at least 1937, effectively taking the position that it is more akin to the oracle of Delphi than a branch of the U.S. government.

The U.S. Congress failed to pass a proposed bill in 2019 to require television coverage of all open sessions of the Court unless a majority of the justices ruled the coverage would violate the due process rights of one or more parties.

One opponent argued the legislation would be unconstitutional because the Court has a “historic authority to decide how to control proceedings in its own chamber.” Another urged the senators to afford the court “a measure of comity in its own governance to decide for itself whether, when, and how cameras should be present during its oral arguments.”

Will the Court will accord the executive branch the same historic authority to control its proceedings that the Court claims as its due?

It has only been since 2010 that the Court began releasing audio recordings of oral arguments and transcripts after the fact.

Meanwhile, the Court doesn’t hold press conferences and strictly limits which journalists can attend its oral arguments and other hearings. Only full-time professional journalists who are “employed by or operate a media organization” can regularly cover the Court. They must be accredited by the Court’s so-called press corps, a notoriously timid group that is loath to offend out of fear of losing their annual membership pass.

Bottom line: The Court tightly controls press coverage of its proceedings, effectively claiming a right to independence under the separation of powers clause in the U.S. Constitution.

To say the U.S. Supreme Court is out of date is a gross understatement.

While the justices were acting like the gods dispensing prophecies in Ancient Greece, the U.S. rapidly changed.

The Court’s press corps includes about two dozen print reporters and TV correspondents.

Pew Research reported in 2021 that a scant 20% of Americans today get their news from newspapers and television, while about 65% rely on social media platforms like Facebook (31%), YouTube (22%), and X. (13%).

Social media platforms do not employ journalists who meet the eligibility requirements to regularly cover Court proceedings.

Why are the justices averse to letting the people see and hear what they do? At various points, justices have expressed concern about showboating and loss of anonymity. Chief Justice John Roberts said broadcasting could "adversely affect the character and quality of the dialogue" in the courtroom.

Will the nation’s high court have the audacity to rule that Trump is in violation of the First Amendment when the Court claims “historic authority to decide how to control proceedings in its own chamber.”

If so, Trump could follow the Court’s example and simply not have press conferences.

Trump could issue oral transcripts or audio recordings.