CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. et al v. TRUMP et al

Filing 2

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by ABILIO JAMES ACOSTA, CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 65.1 Statement, # 3 Declaration of Sam Donaldson, # 4 Declaration of Same Feist, # 5 Declaration of Todd Joseph Gillman, # 6 Declaration of Jim Acosta, # 7 Declaration of Theodore J. Boutrous, # 8 Exhibit 1, # 9 Exhibit 2, # 10 Exhibit 3, # 11 Exhibit 4, # 12 Exhibit 5, # 13 Text of Proposed Order) (jf)

Download PDF
Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 2 Filed 11/13/18 Page 1 of 3 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. and ABILIO JAMES ACOSTA, Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States; WILLIAM SHINE, in his official capacity as Deputy Chief of Staff to the Case No. President of the United States; SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, in her official capacity as Press Secretary EMERGENCY HEARING to the President of the United States; the UNITED REQUESTED FOR TODAY STATES SECRET SERVICE; RANDOLPH ALLES, OR TOMORROW in his official capacity as Director of the United States Secret Service; and JOHN DOE, Secret Service Agent, in his official capacity, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Plaintiffs Cable News Network, Inc. (“CNN”) and Abilio James (“Jim”) Acosta hereby request, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) and Local Rule 65.1, that this Court issue a temporary restraining order requiring Defendants to rescind the revocation of Mr. Acosta’s White House press credentials and immediately restore Mr. Acosta’s credentials to him. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request that this Court, at a minimum, require Defendants to restore Mr. Acosta’s credentials pending due process, including but not limited to a formal written explanation of Defendants’ justification as to why the pass is being suspended and an opportunity for Mr. Acosta to respond to those allegations before a neutral arbiter, in advance of any revocation. Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 2 Filed 11/13/18 Page 2 of 3 A temporary restraining order is warranted here. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. The law is clear: As the D.C. Circuit has held, “the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access [to White House press facilities] not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977). And “notice . . . of the factual bases for denial [of access to White House press facilities] with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is . . . [not] based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons.” Id. at 131. The government complied with none of these safeguards here, stripping Acosta of his credentials and White House access with no process whatsoever, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause. The harm is immediate and ongoing. Due to the exigency of the circumstances and the irreparable nature of the injury the temporary restraining order would prevent, Plaintiffs request a hearing on their temporary restraining order on Tuesday, November 13, 2018, and no later than Wednesday, November 14, 2018. The Defendants continue to violate Plaintiffs’ rights. For example, on the Sunday after Defendants revoked Acosta’s credentials, the Defendants denied him access to cover the “open” press event during the President’s trip to France on the one hundredth anniversary of the end of World War One even though Acosta was present and had a French government-issued press pass. Every day that passes without Acosta regaining his press credentials is a concrete injury. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion) (“The loss of First Amendment ‘freedoms’ . . . unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”); 2 Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 2 Filed 11/13/18 Page 3 of 3 Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. Fed. Elec. Comm’n, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (First Amendment violations “for even minimal periods of time” constitute irreparably injury). This Court should issue a temporary restraining order to preserve the rights of the parties pending a resolution of this matter on the merits. As explained at greater length in the accompanying memorandum, the balance of equities and the public interest favors granting the temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court issue an temporary restraining order immediately requiring Defendants to rescind the revocation of Acosta’s press credentials and restore them to him until Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is decided. Dated: November 13, 2018 Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., (D.C. Bar No. 420440) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Ave., Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: (213) 229-7804 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com Theodore B. Olson (D.C. Bar No. 367456) Joshua S. Lipshutz (D.C. Bar No. 1033391) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 955-8688 tolson@gibsondunn.com jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com Anne Champion (pro hac vice forthcoming) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166-0193 Tel: (212) 351-5361 achampion@gibsondunn.com Counsel for Plaintiffs Cable News Network, Inc., and Abilio James Acosta 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?