News organizations ask court to bar White House enforcement of

The funniest part of this lawsuit is the claim itself. Three news organizations—the AP, Reuters, and CNN—want a judge to step in because the White House has been "unpredictably and inconsistently" enforcing its own ban. Read that again. Their best legal argument is that the administration didn't kick them out cleanly enough. They're not arguing the ban is wrong. They're arguing the execution was too messy. That tells you everything about how entitled this crowd has become.

The White House doesn't need a consistent policy for banning people. It needs the authority to decide who gets in, period. The press pool is a privilege, not a constitutional right. No reporter has ever been denied a story because they had to file from a different building. Plenty of journalists around the world would love the "hardship" of covering this White House from a desk down the street instead of a desk inside it.

The specific gripe about CNN and the television pool is even more revealing. One network gets bounced, and suddenly the whole rotation is broken. The pool isn't a public utility—it's a perk. The media has spent years telling conservatives that private companies can set their own rules for access. Now they're begging the government to force access they can't negotiate on their own. That's not a First Amendment case. That's a tantrum in legal form. The judge should let this play out and let the White House run its own house. The press will survive a little unpredictability. They've survived far worse than being asked to work from the sidewalk.