Appeals Court Upholds White House Press Pass Rules

A federal appeals court has dismissed claims by a foreign journalist that a White House press credential policy adopted under the Biden administration infringes on free speech and targets dissenting voices.

However, it declined to strike down a credentialing policy adopted in 2023 that requires journalists to obtain accreditation from either the Supreme Court or congressional press galleries to qualify for a permanent “hard pass.”

Unlike a daily pass, which requires reporters to apply for clearance each day to access events and be escorted while on site, a hard pass provides ongoing, unescorted access to the White House press area.

Originally loosened in 2021 to expand access for smaller and independent outlets, the hard pass policy was tightened in May 2023. The White House announced at the time that all hard passes would expire by the end of July 2023 and that journalists seeking renewal would have to reapply under stricter requirements.

Related Stories

Under the revised rules, reporters must obtain accreditation from the congressional or Supreme Court press galleries, reside in the Washington, D.C. area, and demonstrate full-time employment with a news organization whose principal business is journalism.

It also requires reporters to submit to Secret Service investigation to ensure they don’t pose any security risks to administration officials or the White House complex.

He alleged that the White House’s actions violated his First Amendment rights by discriminating against him based on the content and tone of his questions.

“While other reporters were affected by the revisions, excluding Mr. Ateba was the primary objective because the White House no longer wanted to deal with him or his questions,” his complaint reads.

His suit also argued that the administration’s reliance on outside credentialing bodies—namely, the congressional and Supreme Court press galleries—unconstitutionally delegated press access decisions to a small group of rival journalists, granting them unaccountable gatekeeping power.

“These executive committees only issue press credentials to journalists they themselves deem to be ‘of repute.’ As a result, the entrenched, mainstream media have the power to pick and choose which reporters may access Congress and the White House,” the lawsuit states.

Ateba further raised procedural concerns, including the lack of transparency in application timelines and the absence of an appeals process. He also contended that the policy unreasonably required him to obtain credentials from institutions he does not cover, such as the Senate, and that the galleries exercise “unbridled discretion in abridging free speech.”

The court also rejected the argument that the policy granted unbridled discretion to gatekeepers, pointing to the objective eligibility criteria used by the press galleries.

“This fight was never about me alone. It was about transparency, fairness, and defending access for all independent journalists—especially those who challenge the status quo. I’ll continue doing my job: asking tough questions, showing up every day, and speaking for the voiceless.”

The White House, which under the Trump administration has continued to enforce the policy, did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Describing Trump as the “most accessible” commander-in-chief in U.S. history, Leavitt said the administration is committed to honoring the First Amendment and broadening access to voices beyond legacy outlets.

Under the new approach, a seat once reserved for staff is now being used to welcome a journalist who may never have set foot in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room.

Leavitt also noted that the administration is working to restore access to hundreds of journalists whose credentials were revoked or denied under Biden-era restrictions.

As part of its overhaul of press operations, the White House has also moved to restructure the traditional press pool system, limiting the number of wire services granted access.