Federal judge finds Pentagon is violating court order to restore access to reporters
Justice Review
A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the Defense Department is violating his earlier order to restore access to the Pentagon for reporters, a setback in the administration's efforts to impede the work of journalists.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman sided with The New York Times for the second time in a month. He had earlier said the Pentagon's new credential policy violated journalists' constitutional rights to free speech and due process. On Thursday, he said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's team had tried to evade his March 20 ruling by putting in new rules that expel all reporters from the building unless guided by escorts.
"The department simply cannot reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking 'new' action and expect the court to look the other way," Friedman wrote. Friedman had ordered Pentagon officials to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times reporters and stressed that his decision applies to "all regulated parties." The Pentagon building serves as the headquarters for U.S. military operations.
Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell said it disagrees with the ruling and intends to appeal. Parnell said in a social media post that the department has "at all times" complied with judge's orders, reinstating journalists' credentials and issuing "a materially revised policy that addressed every concern" identified by the judge.
"The Department remains committed to press access at the Pentagon while fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation," he wrote.
Times attorney Theodore Boutrous said Thursday's ruling "powerfully vindicates both the Court's authority and the First Amendment's protections of independent journalism."
In October, reporters from mainstream news outlets walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules. The Times sued the Pentagon and Hegseth in December to challenge the policy.
President Donald Trump has fought against the press on several levels since returning to his second term, suing The Times and Wall Street Journal, and cutting funding for public radio and television because he did not like their coverage. At the same time, he frequently talks to the media and responds to reporters who call him on his cell phone.
In a series of briefings on the Iran War, Hegseth has frequently ignored or insulted legacy media reporters let in to cover the events, while concentrating on questions from friendly conservative media.
Times attorneys accused the Pentagon of violating the judge's March 20 order, "both in letter and spirit" with its revised policy. The newspaper said that Pentagon was also trying to impose unprecedented rules dictating when reporters can offer anonymity to sources.
Friedman said that the access the Pentagon made available to permit holders "is not even close to as meaningful as the broad access" they previously had.
Government lawyers said the Pentagon's revised policy fully complies with the judge's directives. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell has said the administration would appeal Friedman's March 20 decision.
The Pentagon Press Association, which includes Associated Press reporters, said the Pentagon's interim policy preserves provisions that Friedman deemed to be unconstitutional while also adding new restrictions on credential holders.
"In effect," Justice Department attorneys wrote, "Plaintiffs ask this Court to expand the Order to prohibit the Department from ever addressing the security of the Pentagon through a press credentialing policy with conditions that may address similar topics or concerns as the enjoined conditions. The Order does not say that, and this Court should not read it to say that."
The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Journalists from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including from the AP, have continued reporting on the military from outside the Pentagon.
Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said recent U.S. military operations in Venezuela and Iran underscore the need for public access to information about government activities.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation's security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now," the judge wrote last month.
Friedman said the challenged policy is clearly designed to weed out "disfavored journalists" and replace them with those who are "on board and willing to serve" the administration.
Related listings
-
Man convicted of fraudulently seeking $13M in COVID-19 loans
Justice Review 02/28/2022A Massachusetts businessman has been convicted of fraudulently seeking more than $13 million in federal coronavirus pandemic relief loans, federal prosecutors said. Elijah Majak Buoi, 40, of Winchester, was convicted Thursday of four counts of wire f...
-
The Latest: Court likely to apply excess-fine ban to states
Justice Review 11/24/2018The Supreme Court seems very likely to rule that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to the states. The outcome could help an Indiana man recover the $40,000 Land Rover police seized when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth o...
-
Malaysia court to resume Kim Jong Nam murder trial on Jan. 7
Justice Review 11/06/2018A Malaysian court on Wednesday set Jan. 7 for two Southeast Asian women charged with murdering the North Korean leader’s half brother to begin their defense, as their lawyers complained that some witnesses were unreachable.A High Court judge in...
Victorville CA DUI Lawyers - Drunk Driving Defense Attorney
The outcome of a DUI defense will have a long-term effect on anyone’s life, making the decision to receive legal representation an easy one. The fact is, most people accused of a DUI are first offenders with no criminal background. Whether this is your first run in with the law or you have had previous convictions, you are in need of a DUI defense attorney.
If you fail a sobriety test or have a blood alcohol level above 0.8%, you are considered to be driving under the influence in which you will be arrested. During this time you will be read your Miranda rights and it is crucial to exercise your right to remain silent. As they say, “anything you say can and will be held against you in court.” The courtroom takes no mercy on drunk drivers and any statement you make during your arrest will only damage your case.
The charges you are facing for a DUI range from fines, a 12-month suspension on your license and worst-case scenario, prison time. Your attorney will be able to analyze your situation to decide the best way to go about your case.
Our Victorville CA DUI defense attorneys know the tricky ways to challenge all of the DUI tests and know how to claim improper collection of evidence. We will be able to negotiate on your behalf and free you from charges and help you keep your drivers license. The DUI process can last up to several months, we can make this process easier on you.



