The AP kept calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico after Trump renamed it. The White House kicked them out of the press room. Now it's at the DC Circuit, with argument November 24th. The government's position: it's a small room, we don't have to let everyone in. AP's position: you can't kick us out specifically because you didn't like what we printed. Bryan: the legitimate question is who gets to decide — but retaliatory exclusion is different from just choosing not to invite someone.
AP v. Cheung (25-5109) arose from the White House's decision to exclude the Associated Press from the White House press room after the AP declined to change its house style to call the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America" following Trump's executive renaming. The DC Circuit has oral argument scheduled for November 24th. Bryan opened with a First Amendment civics lesson: in England, peasants didn't need to know how the government was run; in America, "We the People" are the sovereign, and a fully informed citizenry is structurally necessary for democracy to function. He quoted Justice Stewart's Pentagon Papers concurrence (NYT v. United States, 1971): in areas where the executive has nearly unchecked power, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power may lie in an enlightened citizenry, in an informed and critical public opinion." The government's argument in its reply brief: the White House can choose who enters a small, limited-access room; it doesn't have to give everyone access. Bryan acknowledged this is a legitimate question — a president can give an exclusive interview to one network; that's not a First Amendment violation. The harder question: is exclusion specifically because a news organization used language the government didn't like content-based retaliation? Bryan also flagged Pentagon press pool rule changes as potentially feeding into the same legal question.
First Amendmentpress access to government facilitiesviewpoint-based exclusionretaliation for protected publication
Constitutional question: The First Amendment's press protection is not just an individual right — it is a structural guarantee ensuring that the sovereign (the people) has access to information about the government it elects. Bryan's Pentagon Papers framing establishes the constitutional stakes: when executive action blocks journalism that informs voters, it undermines the structural premise of democratic self-governance. The retaliation dimension adds a First Amendment compulsion concern: if the government can exclude press organizations that decline to adopt its preferred terminology, it can effectively coerce factual claims through the threat of exclusion — a form of compelled speech operating through the press room as leverage.
Gregory Bovino, the CBP commander caught on video throwing tear gas at a crowd that included journalists, appears before Judge Ellis Tuesday morning. He said in an interview: "I take my orders from the executive branch." Bryan: "But Mr. Bovino has sworn an allegiance to the US Constitution as well." And on Monday morning, another violation was filed: this one from Saturday, when masked agents without ID numbers tackled three people — including a 70-year-old — in a Chicago neighborhood where kids were getting ready for a Halloween parade, then fired tear gas without warning. One canister caught fire.
CHC v. Noem (styled CHC v. Trump in some episode stubs) continued with a new development on October 27. First: Monday brought another notice of alleged TRO violation. On Saturday, October 25, masked CBP agents entered the 3700 block of Kildare in Old Irving Park, a residential Chicago neighborhood. Children in the area were preparing for a Halloween parade. Residents were in pajamas, one woman came outside with her hair in a towel. Federal agents tackled at least three people, including one who was approximately 70 years old. Residents began yelling at agents — not threatening them, according to cited witness Brian Culp, a former prosecutor and self-described law enforcement supporter. As agents were leaving the scene, after making their arrests, they deployed tear gas without any audible warning. One canister caught fire. The agents were masked and displayed no identification. Second: Bovino's October 28 in-person appearance before Judge Ellis remained scheduled. Bovino had given a media interview saying he "takes orders from the executive branch." Bryan framed this directly: Bovino has sworn an allegiance to the Constitution — which is not just one branch but "you, me and your mom — We the People, the ones who run the show here." The government also filed a motion for a protective order, the text of which Bryan shared in his documents.
First AmendmentTRO compliancetear gas without warningofficer identification requirement
Constitutional question: Bryan anchored the constitutional argument in Pentagon Papers logic: Justice Stewart's concurrence establishes that in areas of executive power where other checks are weak, the press must be absolutely free — "no matter the consequences." If agents tear-gas journalists without warning, or if masked unidentified agents conduct aggressive enforcement actions that chill journalists and residents from observing government conduct, the information pipeline to the sovereign breaks. Bovino's "I take orders from the executive branch" framing is precisely what Bryan pushed back on: the executive branch itself is bound by the Constitution and by court orders implementing it. "We the People" is the source of authority that even the executive cannot override.
Oregon requested en banc rehearing of the Ninth Circuit's National Guard decision. All 9th Circuit judges vote on whether to rehear it. Answer expected Tuesday. Everything in the National Guard cases is kind of hanging on that.
After the three-judge 9th Circuit panel issued its stay decision in Oregon v. Trump (partially allowing federalization and arguably deployment), the State of Oregon petitioned for en banc rehearing — asking that the full Ninth Circuit (or the large en banc panel of approximately 11 judges used by the 9th Circuit due to its size) reconsider the panel's decision. In the Ninth Circuit, all judges must vote on whether to grant en banc rehearing; if a majority votes to rehear, the full/larger panel takes the case and the three-judge panel decision is vacated. An answer was expected on Tuesday, October 28. Bryan said "everything today is sort of hanging on a decision by the Ninth Circuit that's expected tomorrow." He had also listened to the DC v. Trump oral argument on Friday and noted that DC covered Oregon National Guard documents in his shared files, split by state. The en banc outcome would either vacate the three-judge panel's stay (reinstating the full TRO blocking both federalization and deployment) or affirm it (leaving the current partially-stayed posture in place).
Ninth Circuit en banc procedureen banc threshold (majority of active judges)effect of en banc grant on panel decision (vacated)10th Amendment
Constitutional question: The en banc petition squarely asks whether the three-judge panel correctly resolved the constitutional and statutory questions about presidential authority to federalize and deploy state National Guard. A grant would signal that a majority of the Ninth Circuit's active judges believe the panel got it wrong — either on the statutory interpretation of § 12406 or on the constitutional balance of power between executive and state sovereignty. This is the institutional mechanism by which circuit courts self-correct panel decisions that the broader bench views as legally incorrect, before or instead of SCOTUS review.
A couple from Northern Virginia filed a TRO asking a court to stop the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. The complaint is missing elements. The court already issued a notice of errata. Bryan: it's probably not going to work. But: nobody else got off their asses to try to save it. "Mr. and Mrs. Voorhees, good on you. You get a golden duck for today."
Charles and Judith Voorhees, residents of Northern Virginia, filed a case in DC District Court requesting a temporary restraining order to stop the destruction of the East Wing of the White House, which they characterized as "the people's House." Their legal hook: the National Capital Planning Act governs changes to the capital's structure, and they argue the demolition violates it. Bryan's honest assessment: the case is a long shot. The filing is short and lacks sufficient information to support a TRO against the president. The complaint doesn't list all required parties. The plaintiffs haven't adequately demonstrated standing — as Northern Virginia residents, their particularized injury from demolition of a DC building is legally thin. The court had already issued a notice of errata indicating the filing was missing required elements. Bryan added: "I hate to say it, but I think they might be a little late" — the demolition appeared to already be in progress. But he closed with genuine appreciation: nobody else tried.
National Capital Planning ActTRO standard against executive actionstanding (Virginia residents challenging DC structure demolition)notice of errata (missing complaint elements)
Constitutional question: The White House as "the people's House" invokes a symbolic constitutional stake, but the law requires a concrete particularized injury, not a diffuse civic grievance. The National Capital Planning Act is a statutory limit on changes to Washington DC's built environment — it doesn't generate a private right of action for any individual citizen who objects to a federal building change. The case illustrates the gap between constitutional principle (government buildings belong to the public in some normative sense) and legal doctrine (you need specific injury and specific authority to sue). Bryan valued the impulse without endorsing the theory.
