"Press access is a privilege, not a right." This is the most common objection to the argument that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment by banning news outlets it doesn't like from the White House. But the fact that you don't have a right to something in the first place doesn't mean the government can take it away to punish you for exercising your First Amendment rights. Federal courts have reaffirmed this principle many times. Nobody has an automatic right to a property tax exemption. But in Speiser v. Randall (1958), the Supreme Court held that California could not deny one to residents who refused to sign a loyalty oath. Nobody has a right to a government contract. But in Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996), the Supreme Court held that a Kansas county could not cancel a trash-hauling contract just because the contractor wrote editorials criticizing the county government. The same principle applies in other contexts. Nobody has a right to be a professor at a public university. But firing a professor over his liberal or conservative beliefs would violate the First Amendment. A driver's license may be a privilege. That doesn't mean the state can revoke your license just because you criticized the governor. If the rule were otherwise, the government would have enormous power to do exactly what the First Amendment forbids it from doing: punish Americans for saying things the government doesn't like.

Court orders are not optional. The law requires all Americans to abide by court rulings, regardless of whether they disagree with the ruling. Refusal to abide by a court ruling has a name: contempt. And contempt has clear consequences. Judge Kelly explicitly ordered the Trump administration to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” CNN, MS NOW, and Politico’s “hard pass” credentials to the White House. Refusing to abide by Judge Kelly's clear order would be a dangerous escalation and an affront to the rule of law.

"America is NOT better off with presidents treating press credentials as rewards for softball questions and fawning coverage. Today’s decision reinforces that our free and independent press is a fundamental part of our constitutional framework." –@WillatFIRE

The Trump White House media ban has raised lots of questions. Thankfully, FIRE is here with the answers. Join us tomorrow as we break down what happened, why it matters, and what the First Amendment has to say about it! REGISTER ➡️

Incredibly disappointing. Discouraged by the student senate’s flagrant viewpoint discrimination this month, @whitmancollege Republican Club members have decided not to resubmit the club for official recognition. Chilled into silence. This is what happens when the censors win.

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government. "This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America." 🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick 📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl

"How terrible would it be to live in a country where every newspaper and every reporter has to parrot what the government says? That may be fine in China and Russia, but it is not how we do things here in America." 🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick 📺: @TheLeadCNN

When the White House opens its doors to the press, it must comply with the First Amendment. The president is as free as any other person to criticize media coverage. But he can’t ban outlets from the White House just because he doesn’t like their reporting or commentary. Press credentials aren’t a reward for loyalty to the government. A free, even adversarial, press is a sign of our country’s strength. The public deserves to hear about its government from independent voices, not just its leader’s loyalists and allies.

The @whitmancollege Republican Club was unanimously denied recognition after student senators pressed club members to criticize the GOP and President Trump — all while recognizing Planned Parenthood and climate change groups. This is viewpoint discrimination, pure and simple.

The Trump administration used a domestic terrorism directive to investigate citizens in Minnesota protesting federal immigration enforcement. NSPM-7 labels opposition as “anti-American” and political violence, putting First Amendment-protected beliefs under federal scrutiny. 🧵

The First Circuit sides with parents punished for wearing pink “XX” wristbands to their daughters’ soccer game to protest transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ sports. It was a silent protest. There was no evidence of disruption or harassment of any player. As the court recognized, school officials sought to suppress a viewpoint on a contested issue. But “administrators cannot favor one side of a debate involving parental speech on an issue of prominent public concern, and which, in those parents’ views, concerned the safety of their children.” That violates the First Amendment. Great win by @InstFreeSpeech.

Join my team! 🔥 FIRE is hiring a Fellow, Student Press and Campus Rights Advocacy to work with our Student Press Freedom Initiative and Campus Rights Advocacy teams. You’ll work directly on student press and campus free speech issues while getting exposure to FIRE’s litigation, advocacy, policy, education, research, and communications work. Plus: mentorship, dedicated professional development opportunities, and support for pursuing graduate or professional school. If you’re passionate about defending student journalists and free speech on campus, apply—or help us spread the word! (🔗 in thread)

Aw man! U. of Vermont comes close, but no cigar on its protected and unprotected speech graphic. Kudos for recognizing that “hateful speech” and “offensive speech” are protected under the 1st Amendment. But encouraging students to “report” that speech anyway is a bad idea and still chills speech. Think it through: 1. Nobody agrees what speech is hateful or offensive, and some people are more sensitive than others, which is the classic problem. Here’s the “common ground value” UVM cites: “we unite against all forms of injustice, including, but not limited to, racism. We reject bigotry, oppression, degradation, and harassment.” To what degree, and on what topics? With no guidance, there’s only one answer - a viewpoint (un)popularity contest. And guidance that satisfies everyone is impossible. 2. Imagine a Ukrainian student says something offensive about Russians in light of the ongoing war. Is a Vermont admin really going to pull them in, sit them down, and tell them they need to cool off? How about a student wearing a “Punch a Nazi” shirt? That’s either not going to happen, in which case UVM's doing viewpoint discrimination in disguise, or it is going to happen, and UVM will be forced into increasingly foolish situations that make everyone look dumb. ("Look, I know Russia bombed your city to the ground and killed your family, but that's no reason to say mean stuff about Russians!") 3. Students will feel duped and betrayed when UVM’s bias response folks turn out not to be able to “solve” what they feel, rightly or wrongly, is a problem, especially when UVM says some speech is against its values. If you report something to the authorities, you expect something to be done about it. And if you have a “value,” people expect you to stick with it. On this one, UVM can’t actually do either. Far better not to send students these mixed messages.

This morning @TheFIREorg filed an amicus brief explaining why the First Amendment prohibits deporting lawfully present noncitizens based on protected speech. The brief covers the Framers’ backlash to the Alien Friends Act, which authorized Pres. Adams to deport “dangerous” aliens

Yesterday, FIRE urged Sec. McMahon to back the renewed focus on campus speech with clear constitutional guardrails: protect lawful expression, enforce harassment rules consistently, and stop colleges from using parallel policies to evade free-speech and due-process protections.

I’ve been warning for a while that the UN’s Cybercrime treaty will bring trouble for free speech. Dozens of nations signed on last year. And in just the first half of 2026, we’re already seeing troubling new cybercrime bills emerge globally. Read it here:

Censors are getting increasingly creative. Here, Florida is using the cover of shareholder accountability to try and force the @nytimes to "open the books" on its editorial practices and discussions. Despite what the AG says, this is an attempted end-run around the First Amendment.

The Center for American Progress says the administration's National Guard deployments didn't reduce urban crime. President Trump says they did. OK. That's what political debate is for. But Trump is now threatening to sue CAP over its conclusion about the effectiveness of a government policy. Whether you agree with CAP's analysis or not, that's heartland First Amendment-protected speech. There's no viable legal claim here. Just another attempt by the president to silence and punish political opponents by tying them up with frivolous litigation.