right

CNN, MS NOW and Politico are headed to court to challenge the constitutionality of President Trump’s order to ban the three news organizations from the White House.

The three outlets announced Monday they are jointly filing a lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court in Washington, D.C. asking for a temporary restraining order that restores their access immediately while the case is heard.

“This morning we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports and publishes,” CNN, MS NOW and Politico said in a statement. “Without notice or due process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to indpendent journalism free from government interference.”

The lawsuit against the Trump Administration will allege that the ban violates the 1st Amendment by retaliating against protected newsgathering as punishment for unfavorable coverage, as well as blocking reporters from a “nonpublic forum” for unlawful reasons.

The suit notes precedent is a case from 1977 that ruled the White House cannot arbitrarily restrict press credentials for reporters on grounds that there’s retaliation for viewpoint discrimination.

Trump announced the ban Friday in a Truth Social post, describing CNN, MS NOW and Politico as “fake news.” He did not cite any specific story that prompted the action, claiming the outlets have long been unfair to him and never provide any positive coverage.

Trump was asked Friday how his ban will hold up in court.

“I don’t think a court should allow fake news to be written day after day after day,” he said. “I think that somebody has a right to keep them away if they’re going to write false stories all the time.”

Trump’s asserts that the ban is the result of unhappiness with the coverage he receives from the three outlets. Trump’s statements are likely to be used against him in court.

The ban has already raised questions on how the public will be able to monitor the president’s activities. CNN was scheduled to provide the video feed of Trump’s Monday trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. The pool feed, as it’s called, provides video to all other press outlets.

CNN’s assignment does not appear on the press schedule issued Sunday by the White House.

On Saturday, journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were barred from entering White House grounds as they learned their press credentials were no longer valid. Some were asked to hand them over to Secret Service.

Trump has tried twice to deny news organizations White House access. In 2018 during his first term, the White House tried to ban journalist Jim Acosta, then working for CNN, but a court ordered that his press credential be resinstated.

Last year, the Trump White House issued a ban on the Associated Press when the news organization refused to recognize the president’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico by executive order. A federal judge ordered that the AP’s access to the White House be restored on the grounds that the government cannot punish a journalistic outlet over the content of its speech.

A divided appeals court panel later paused that ruling for the Oval Office, Air Force One and other restricted spaces, allowing the White House to keep the AP out of them while the case proceeds.

Trump has railed against outlets that he considers unfriendly to his administration, calling for the Federal Communications Commission to pull the TV station licenses of the broadcast networks. He has also asked the FCC to take action against individual journalists who irk him, the last being “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has tried to act on Trump’s behalf by calling for a review of ABC’s TV licenses, which the Walt Disney Co.-owned network is challenging in court.

“This is about more than the rights of journalists. It is about the right of the American people to receive a full and independent account of the activities, policies and decisions of whoever occupies the nation’s highest office,” Heinrich said in a statement.

Trump has also lashed out at individual reporters in person or over social media, sometimes in strikingly personal terms — insulting them in briefings, or in his recent speech at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner.

Trump’s press attacks have spread to other parts of his administration. The Department of Defense tried to restrict journalist access to the Pentagon.

The department also recently fired three journalists at the military’s newspaper Stars and Stripes for insubordination after they appeared in a CBS News report on how the Trump administration has tried to restrict their reporting.

In a matter of days, Ed Sheeran has gone from the most agreeable, defiantly middle-of-the-road singer-songwriter on the pop charts to music’s newest villain. The Times’ August Brown and Mikael Wood gathered to break down what happened — and to figure out what it all means.

August Brown: To recap, Sheeran dropped his tour opener, the rapper Macklemore, after the MC described Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide and said “Free Palestine” onstage this month at two New Jersey dates of Sheeran’s ongoing stadium tour. Macklemore, in a statement, cited his long friendship with Sheeran while criticizing the singer for allegedly acquiescing to a demand from Robert Kraft, the owner of the NFL’s New England Patriots, that the rapper not be allowed to perform at the Patriots’ Gillette Stadium outside Boston due to his comments.

Kraft, a Trump-supporting billionaire with his own colorful history, released a statement about the tour, saying he was “ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech.”

But Sheeran, who performed at Kraft’s wedding in 2022, arguably made things much worse with his own comments on the decision to drop Macklemore from the tour, which ranged from shifting accountability (“Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter’s decision, it was not mine”) to promising that he held compassionate beliefs on this volatile issue but wouldn’t articulate them publicly (“I am not complicit. I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly, it doesn’t mean I don’t have them, and it doesn’t mean I don’t care.”)

This prompted Sheeran’s remaining openers — including the musician and producer Finneas, the Danish rock combo Lukas Graham and singer-songwriter Aaron Rowe — to drop off the tour, each giving their plainspoken support for both Macklemore’s advocacy and the Palestinian people as their reasons for leaving. The traditional Irish group Beoga, which backs Sheeran for a portion of his nightly show, also quit the tour, saying it was responding to “the silencing of Macklemore by Zionist lobbies.”

It’s too soon to know how this will affect a CVS-core pop star like Sheeran, but it’s clear that for the first time in his career, he’s chosen the path of maximum conflict and controversy for little gain. What do you think he should he have done instead?

Macklemore

(Morgan Hancock / Getty Images)

Mikael Wood: Not let Macklemore be booted from his tour?

Look, I understand Sheeran’s position here: that he views himself as an artist whose audience comes to his show precisely because they’d like to avoid the messy realities of the world for two or three hours. We can choose a different day to discuss how tenable (or not) that position is here in the era of a reality-TV president who long ago blurred the line between politics and entertainment.

But setting aside one’s views on Israel and Palestine, it’s impossible for me to see how Sheeran ever thought his actions would be seen as anything other than allowing a fellow artist to be silenced — a clear loser in the eyes of both the left and the right.

It would be one thing if Macklemore’s comments in New Jersey truly resembled the hate speech that Kraft accused him of dispensing. (Many online have posted images of a costume the rapper wore onstage in 2014 that resembled an ugly Jewish caricature; Macklemore apologized at the time, saying he understood the criticism.)

And of course I get that the very idea of hate speech is slippery — one reason, perhaps, that the folks at AT&T Stadium near Dallas (where Sheeran is scheduled to perform next month) appear to have no problem hosting a concert in November by Ye, who not so long ago released a song called, uh, “Heil Hitler.”

But given how measured Macklemore’s comments were, Sheeran’s decision to go along with the demands for his removal feels less like a fulfillment of his desire to create a conflict-free zone and more like a capitulation to a rich and powerful friend.

August, what do you make of the various statements from the musicians who’ve opted to leave the tour in the wake of all this?

August Brown: The other openers had the most to lose here by bowing out of a huge tour. Yet they took unambiguous stances in favor of Macklemore’s Palestinian advocacy. (On Wednesday, the rapper said on Instagram that he planned to donate “the entire $1 million of my net earnings” from Sheeran’s tour to six organizations “working directly to support the Palestinian people.” He also invited Kraft to match his donation.)

“Artists must not be silenced when they speak up for the oppressed,” Finneas wrote. “I stand with Palestine and its people.”

Lukas Graham went even harder: “We should be able to speak about war, about civilians being killed, about children who deserve to grow up,” the group wrote. “Money doesn’t give you the right to own the conversation.”

Sheeran could have done what many fans regard as the right thing: Defy Kraft’s demands, cancel the Gillette Stadium dates with Macklemore and reroute the tour to somewhere that would support an opening act’s fairly anodyne support of a popular human rights cause. Sheeran is extremely wealthy, and he’d have been on the right side of history, if for no other reason than to say that billionaires shouldn’t have a veto over an artist’s human rights advocacy onstage.

I’m sympathetic to the idea that crews’ livelihoods and fans’ investment in the shows are meaningful things to toss out. But an artist as big as Sheeran can make up the difference. Even a hypothetical statement like “I stand for Macklemore’s freedom of speech and the rights of the Palestinian people. My team’s livelihoods depends on the shows happening, so I will play the Gillette dates as planned,” with a promise for a donation or a benefit show with Macklemore down the line — even that would have smoothed this over.

But his actions here — deflecting accountability, being vague yet defensive about his own politics — and his history with Kraft suggest his sympathies might not lie with the causes his opening acts stand for.

It’s interesting that Beoga and Aaron Rowe, both Irish acts, acknowledged their own country’s history of colonial occupation as reason to stand up for Palestinians (and free speech around it). “Ed has been a friend to me and has changed my life, I could never thank him enough for this,” Rowe wrote in his statement. “But as Irish people we know all too well about genocide, forced famine, and violent occupation.”

Even Lukas Graham cited the band’s roots in Christiania, a Danish enclave with a history as an anarchist commune, as an example they’re following by bailing on this tour. Sheeran likes to say that, through his father, he is culturally Irish though he was born and raised in England. In a country that rallied for Kneecap, the Irish rap group and advocates for Palestinians, his reputation is likely taking a real hit. Whether that extends to his ultra-mainstream U.S. fan base remains to be seen.

Not every artist is obliged to comment on contentious issues — though the success of Olivia Rodrigo’s Daisy Chain Fields festival, which raised money for an array of abortion-rights advocacy groups, showed that A-listers can speak out when they want to. But whatever he actually believes, Sheeran’s long-cultivated neutrality is in tatters. Taking a stand would have been the path of least resistance. Instead, he committed the most basic onstage error: a failure to read the room.

It remains illegal in California for a school district to force teachers and other staff to alert parents about their child’s gender identity, but parents must be told when they ask about it, a judge ruled Tuesday in a widely watched case dealing with parental rights.

San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Michael Sachs, weighing both state law and a Supreme Court order, rejected an attempt by the Chino Valley Unified School District to reinstate its mandatory parent-notification policy.

“There is no requirement that the school district, on its own, after learning of transgender issues, contact parents and let the parents know of them,” Sachs said in court. At the same time, “in the event a parent makes an affirmative inquiry of a minor child regarding their status, whether transgender or not, that will trigger an obligation by the school district to respond.”

Under the Chino Valley policy, approved in July 2023, a school would have to notify parents of any request by a student “to use pronouns that do not align with the student’s biological sex or gender listed on the student’s birth certificate or other official records.” The same notification rules applied to the use of bathrooms or participation in sports.

State Attorney General Rob Bonta immediately challenged that policy in court and it was put on hold. In October 2024, Sachs had ruled that most of the policy was discriminatory — and therefore illegal — because it singled out a group of students for treatment that was different than the treatment of other students.

As an example, he cited the possibility that a student would come out confidentially to a school counselor — and then that counselor would immediately be required to alert the parents, even against the student’s wishes.

A policy that could result in mandated actions by a school employee continues to conflict with the intent of a 2025 California law that barred a school system from forcing teachers to tell parents about a student’s gender, Sachs concluded.

“That’s inappropriate and it’s still inappropriate,” Sachs said Tuesday.

New rules, new rulings

What has changed in the legal landscape, he added, is what happens when a parent requests information about their child’s gender status or sexual orientation or any number of other issues affecting that child.

Trial court rulings — affirmed by a Supreme Court majority in March — said that parents have the right to demand information about their child’s gender identity at school. School staff cannot lie to parents — including matters that a student wishes to conceal from their parents.

Attorney Emily Rae, representing Chino Valley, said Sachs was correct to acknowledge that parents had the right to information about their child, but that his ruling did not go nearly far enough — and that parent notification should be mandatory statewide.

Chino Valley also has a separate pending court challenge to the 2025 California law, contending it is at odds with the direction of the Supreme Court, which should take precedence.

Dept. Attorney General Delbert Tran, representing the state, declined to be interviewed Tuesday, but in his exchanges with Sachs, it was clear that he saw the ruling as about as much of a win as would be possible, given the Supreme Court’s recent directives.

He also said that supporters of parent-notification policies misstate or misunderstand the parent-teacher relationship that exists in practice and under state law. Parents, he said, have the legal right to observe classes and meet with teachers, and the expectation is that teachers will communicate freely and often with parents about a child’s needs and progress.

Chino Valley champions its view of parent rights

Chino Valley, a school district of 26,000 students in San Bernardino County, has adopted and defended a series of policies favored by parent activists, religious conservatives and President Trump under the leadership of school board President Sonja Shaw, a Republican currently running for the office of state superintendent of public instruction.

Under her leadership, the school system has taken a stand for a flag-ban policy in schools and classrooms, widely viewed as targeting gay pride flags; for removing school library books with passages deemed to be sexually obscene, and for working to ban trans athletes from girls sports and girls locker rooms.

Shaw attended Tuesday’s hearing and criticized Sachs’ reasoning.

“When he talks about a parent has a right to know now only if they ask, how do you know you’re being lied to or secrets being kept?,” Shaw said after the hearing. “That absolutely makes no sense.”

Shaw said the judge should have done “what’s right: Upheld parents’ constitutional right to the upbringing of their own child.”

In anticipation of Sachs’ ruling against the original policy, the Chino Valley school board revised the policy, expanding it to all students. Under the current policy, if any student “requests a change to their official or unofficial records, parents/guardians shall be notified to ensure that parents/guardians are informed and involved in all aspects of their child’s education.”

In other words, if a straight male student named William suddenly decided he wanted to be referred to as Robert on the class roll sheet — an official record — his parents would be notified.

In 2024, Sachs accepted this version of notification because students were not singled out for different treatment on the basis of their gender.

That form of the policy remains in effect.

Since that time, Shaw said, the district has been “transparent” with parents regarding important issues in the lives of their children. And Tuesday’s ruling would not change that.

Moving forward, she added, the district could assertively ask parents if they want to be informed about their child’s gender issues and that permission — if given — would continue to apply as the student proceeds through grade school.