Judge says Pentagon must restore press access

A federal judge ruled the Defense Department violated a court order requiring it to ease stringent restrictions imposed on reporters who cover the Pentagon and blocked a new press policy issued by the department last month.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman again sided with the New York Times and its reporter Julian Barnes, who filed a lawsuit last year that argued the new Pentagon policy violated the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and due process provision of the Constitution. 

Last month, Friedman struck down some of the Pentagon’s strict controls on how journalists with Pentagon press passes are allowed to report — ending a policy that has caused many news outlets, including CBS News, to leave the Pentagon.

Friedman ruled that the Pentagon failed to comply with his March order and said a revised press policy, which the Pentagon instituted after his order, was also unlawful. 

The new Pentagon rules expelled all reporters from the building unless they were accompanied by government escorts and removed media outlets’ office spaces from the building.

“The Department cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the Court to look the other way,” Friedman wrote. “Nor can the Department take steps to circumvent the Court’s injunction and expect the Court to turn a blind eye.”

Friedman’s March ruling halted some of the most onerous restrictions imposed on news outlets, including one provision that said reporters who “solicit” classified or sensitive information from military personnel could be deemed a security risk and barred from the building. He also struck down a section that referred to Pentagon access as a “privilege” rather than a “right.”

Some sections were left in place, including restrictions on where reporters are allowed to go in the Pentagon without an escort. 

Friedman’s order Thursday requires a Pentagon official “with personal knowledge” to sign a sworn declaration to him by April 16 “describing the steps taken to ensure compliance” with the order. 

“The Court cannot conclude this Opinion without noting once again what this case is really about: the attempt by the Secretary of Defense to dictate the information received by the American people, to control the message so that the public hears and sees only what the Secretary and the Trump Administration want them to hear and see,” Friedman wrote Thursday. “The Constitution demands better. The American public demands better, too. Over the past few weeks, the Court has received dozens of letters and postcards from people across the country explaining what the First Amendment means to them.”