Associated Press - Part 2
Press Access Files · Associated Press · Part 2 of 2
A Trump-appointed judge ruled against the Trump White House. The ban still continued.
On April 8 2025, a federal judge ruled that excluding the Associated Press from key White House spaces was contrary to the First Amendment. The administration appealed. The outcome was split. This is where the case stood next.
Judge Trevor McFadden. April 8 2025. Trump appointee.
02 / 07
A federal judge called the exclusion contrary to the First Amendment.
On April 8 2025, US District Court Judge Trevor McFadden ruled that the White House's practice of blocking AP journalists from the Oval Office, Air Force One and other secure spaces was contrary to the First Amendment.
McFadden wrote: "Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists, be it to the Oval Office, the East Room or elsewhere, it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less."
He ordered the White House to restore AP's access at the same level as other news organizations, then paused his order to give the White House time to appeal.
Source: CNBC, "Judge says White House can't ban Associated Press from Oval Office, Air Force One," April 8 2025
Trump administration. Immediate appeal. April 2025.
03 / 07
The administration appealed immediately.
The Trump administration appealed McFadden's decision, challenging the requirement to restore AP's access immediately.
The appeal went to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
The issue shifted from the district court's First Amendment ruling to whether the ban could remain in place while the underlying case continued.
Source: Yahoo News, "Trump Administration Appeals Decision Reversing AP White House Ban," April 2025
DC Circuit three-judge panel. June 2025. Mixed ruling.
04 / 07
The panel split the ruling. Restricted spaces were treated differently.
The three-judge panel ruled the White House could reinstate its ban of AP from the Oval Office, Air Force One, Mar-a-Lago and similar restricted spaces while litigation continued, citing space limitations.
The panel ruled differently for the East Room, which does not have the same space limitations as the other restricted areas.
The court's reasoning turned on the nature of the location and access rules, not press pool membership alone.
Source: Freedom Forum, "Does the White House Blocking AP From Press Events Violate the First Amendment?" November 26 2025
Full DC Circuit. July 22 2025. Final appellate word.
05 / 07
The full appeals court declined to review the panel's ruling.
On July 22 2025, the full federal appeals court declined the Associated Press's request to review the three-judge panel's June ruling.
That left the split decision standing.
The White House could continue restricting AP from the Oval Office, Air Force One and Mar-a-Lago while the underlying case continued, while the East Room remained subject to different access rules.
Source: Freedom Forum, "Does the White House Blocking AP From Press Events Violate the First Amendment?" November 26 2025
Status. The underlying case. Still pending.
06 / 07
A judge called it unconstitutional. The AP was still restricted from the most visible rooms.
A sitting federal judge, appointed by the president whose administration he ruled against, found the AP's exclusion contrary to the First Amendment.
The administration's appeal succeeded in keeping restrictions in place for the most visible spaces while the underlying lawsuit continued.
AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said the organization would "continue to stand for the right of the press and the public to speak freely without government retaliation."
Source: NPR, February 24 2025, Lauren Easton statement · Freedom Forum, November 26 2025, case status
The question. Not a claim.
07 / 07
If a court can rule it unconstitutional and the practice continues anyway, what does the ruling mean?
This is the end of the Associated Press Press Access Files. The case continues. The ban, in the rooms that matter most for visibility, continued too. You now know what the gap between a ruling and a practice looks like.
Some stories are buried on purpose. We dig.
Two new stories every week
Follow UNSILENCED.