War Dept. Wins Key Court Battle Over Media
Part of that effort has included ways to stop the leaks of sensitive information that are counterproductive to President Trump’s vision for the department or that compromise operations.
To that end, Hegseth managed to win a key court battle on Thursday as a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 to stay a lower court order that had blocked the Pentagon’s escort policy for credentialed journalists.
The appeals court concluded that the Defense Department is likely to win its argument that the policy, which requires journalists to be escorted in certain areas of the Pentagon, is a fair security measure that does not violate the First Amendment or retaliate against the press, as The New York Times and reporter Julian E. Barnes have alleged.
The policy, implemented under Hegseth to safeguard sensitive information, will remain in effect while the case proceeds.
The D.C. Circuit has placed the appeal on an expedited schedule, with further review expected through mid-September, reports noted on Friday.
The appellate panel—composed of judges appointed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden—overrode a June ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman, a nominee of President Bill Clinton, who had blocked the Pentagon’s escort requirement and criticized it as a “perverse reading of the First Amendment.”
Judge Brad Garcia, the panel’s Biden-appointed member, dissented from the 2-1 decision.
“While The Times is disappointed with this interim decision, we appreciate that the court has expedited the appeal and look forward to litigating it on the merits,” Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander wrote in a statement published by the Washington Post.
Since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, the Pentagon and members of the press have been in a prolonged dispute.
The conflict intensified in the fall, when hundreds of journalists surrendered their press credentials rather than agree to a policy prohibiting them from seeking information the government had not authorized for release.
The New York Times challenged that policy in court and, in March, won a ruling striking down its central provisions.
The government appealed that decision.
Following the ruling, the Pentagon adopted an interim policy that included the new escort requirement for credentialed journalists.
The Times filed a separate lawsuit challenging that policy and initially succeeded in blocking its enforcement.
However, the D.C. Circuit’s latest decision allows the escort requirement to remain in effect while the appeal moves forward.
Last year, War Dept. officials said they intended the changes to protect national security.
Under the policy, the department described efforts by reporters to seek non-public information or encourage employees to violate the law as falling outside the scope of protected newsgathering.
The rules also allowed officials to deny or revoke press credentials if a journalist was deemed to pose a safety or security risk.
Most members of the Pentagon press corps declined to sign an acknowledgment of the updated policy and subsequently lost their press credentials.
Friedman wrote in his ruling that our founders “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,” he wrote without actually addressing the legal and constitutional issue at hand: Whether the War Dept. has the authority to issue the rules.
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire