A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has blocked a Pentagon policy that sought to limit what journalists are able to report about the U.S. military, ruling in favor of The New York Times in a case that raised fundamental questions about the freedom of the press.
The Pentagon policy, unveiled last September, required media organizations to pledge not to gather information unless officials from the Department of Defense formally authorized its release. The policy extended beyond classified information, and included a prohibition on reporting even unclassified material without the approval of Pentagon officials.
The policy prompted widespread condemnation from press freedom groups, and led multiple news organizations to forfeit their Pentagon press passes, rather than comply. NPR is among the organizations that turned in its press passes, but has continued vigorous reporting on the Pentagon.
Parnell, the Pentagon spokesman, responded to the ruling in a statement posted to social media, saying the department planned to challenge the order.
“We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal,” he said.
Their first step in the appeal will be to seek a stay of the district court order. And they probably will get it, making this an illusory victory. To recap:
- Step 1: Enact illegal rule/agency guidance/EO. This creates a new status quo.
- Step 2: Ignore any objections and delay during inevitable court challenges to sustain the new rule as long as possible.
- Step 3: Argue in trial court or appellate court that an injunction against the new rule will disrupt the status quo.
- Step 4a: Court rejects the injunction. Go to Step 2.
- Step 4b: Court agrees to the injunction. Appeal, and optionally ignore the court order during the appeal, which only creates more urgency for the appellate court and challenger to address the appeal.
