Seeing comments that CNN ruling had nothing to do with 1st Amend - all about 5th. Not quite right. Sherrill v Knight's holding was that procedural requirements of notice, opp to respond, etc, were compelled by the finding that interests in credentials were protected by 1st Amend.— Jonathan Peters (@jonathanwpeters) November 16, 2018
Here, the procedures and process violation at issue, that has led to the deprivation of what [Sherrill v. Knight] requires me to recognize as a liberty interest … that’s grounded in the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. Moreover, the First Amendment interests as recognized in Sherrill were not vested merely in publications or agencies; they were liberties of the individual journalists themselves. For that reason, that CNN may still send another journalist or other journalists to the White House does not make the harm to Mr. Acosta any less irreparable. … It’s a harm that cannot be remedied in retrospect. … So on this highly, highly unusual set of facts and interests at stake, I do find that the plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing that irreparable harm has and will continue to occur in the absence of [remedy].
Here's what Trump-appointed Judge Kelly said about gov't case: "Whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the government could not tell me at oral argument who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta's press pass."— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) November 16, 2018