COME NOW THE OPPONENTS OF DUE PROCESS:

The judge's cryptic statement suggests that revoking a reporter's press pass may or may not violate the Constitution--but revoking it without providing a reason, and a chance for the reporter to contest that action, does. The judge said he was relying on precedent, though he added, "whether it's what I agree with, that's a different story, but I must apply precedent as I see it."

The case he is referring to is almost certainly Sherrill v. Knight, which concerned Robert Sherrill, the cantankerous Washington editor of The Nation, who was denied a press pass to the White House even though he had congressional press credentials. The Secret Service at first refused to explain the refusal, then finally alleged that the denial was based on reports of a couple of fistfights the cantankerous writer had gotten into during his days as a Southern newsman. (Disclosure: I was briefly a researcher for Sherrill, which got me chased out of Hollywood by the FBI, but that's a story for another time.)

Neither Sherrill nor anybody else, Circuit Judge Carl McGowan wrote, was entitled to White House access as a matter of First Amendment law. But the White House had "voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom." Once government made that choice, "the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press ... requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons." For that reason, the Secret Service could not deny Sherrill or anyone else a pass without making public its rules. And if the Service wanted to deny anyone a pass based on those rules, it had to give the rejected applicant "notice of the factual basis for denial, an opportunity ... to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial."

Eventually the Service offered Sherrill his pass; having made his point, he declined.

Tweet   @brothersjudd