This seems, on the surface, like a victory for the legacy media – but it’s not the victory they were hoping for. Here’s why.

On Tuesday, Judge Trevor McFadden granted the Associated Press (AP) an injunction against the Trump administration’s banning them from press events in the Oval Office and the East Room. The AP claimed that the administration blocked their access because of editorial viewpoints, and Judge McFadden agreed. Here’s Politico’s Senior Political Affairs reporter Kyle Cheney’s X thread with some details; this takes a little unpacking.

BREAKING: Judge McFadden has *granted * the AP’s injunction against the White House’s ban on access to the Oval Office and East Room. pic.twitter.com/sH3leAsLvK

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 8, 2025

The decision begins with the reason for the AP’s exclusion:

About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP’s access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the President. The AP now sues the White House chief of staff, her communications deputy, and the press secretary (collectively, “the Government”), seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the Government from excluding it because of its viewpoint.

The court, in the form of Judge McFadden, has granted this preliminary injunction; the AP will, for the time being, be back in Oval Office and East Room press briefings. 

So, in the halls of the Associated Press building, there is probably some grinning and glad-handing going around. But, at least to a non-legal type (me), it looks like Judge McFadden has left the Trump administration a loophole. The decision continues:

But this injunction does not limit the various permissable reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. 

Here’s the onion:

It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones’ questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views. No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists – be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere – it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.

So, if you’ll all return your tray tables and seat backs to the upright and locked positions, we’ll bring this sucker in.