CNN sues the White House to get Acosta his "hard pass" back...

I have read both sides of this particular argument.

Those who are inclined to agree with the CNN argument will cite first amendment rights, as well as a previous court ruling on a previous banned reporter. In that case it was ruled that the Secret Service is only allowed to suspend access to someone who causes potential physical harm to the President or staff. They will also argue that other court cases have required to provide notice, allow a response, and to some degree hold some sort of hearing before revoking clearance.

Things get physical over a microphone

However those who are inclined to disagree with the CNN argument will argue that the "hard pass" that was revoked is a privilege, not a constitutional right. They will also argue that Acosta is not being denied access. Acosta could still petition like anyone else. Still could watch and report on the press conferences over the television. They will also argue that CNN has over fifty people with hard passes, and that there is no harm being done by CNN if one specific person has that pass revoked.

This becomes one of these questions as to who actually has the ultimate authority to determine who does and who doesn't receive full access to any and all White House events. Certainly there is no collective media conglomerate that would be able to sort this out. There is nothing in our constitution or laws that would allow these decisions to be made by the courts.

The reality is that there is a very select few allowed into these events. Tens of thousands of reporters from all around the country (and world) are not provided hard passes, and constitutionally everyone one of those reporters has no less right to be their than a reporter from CNN. But they are denied.

Past precedent has always allowed that the White House has the final say as to which outlets are provided passes, and which outlets are not provided outlets. What sort of precedent would be set if a Judge stepped in and tried to make a legal argument that Acosta (and by proxy CNN) is special?

Ultimately, this appears headed up the chain of the courts. Short of a Judge providing a temporary injunction that cannot be appealed, it would look like Acosta will be out his pass while this works it's way through the system.

Even in the case of CNN ultimately prevailing, the Trump White House could simply suspend all Press Conferences that include Acosta as one of the participants. Play hardball. Certainly nobody can "force" the White House to provide a press conference. I wonder out loud how long the collective press would stand by Acosta when their bread and butter is being withheld because of one person?