Today’s show: all the insanity that is election-denier Patrick Byrne, represented by Trump’s boyhood pal Peter Ticktin, threatening a Trump-appointed judge with the death penalty (!)
With @lizdye.bsky.social
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-26…
P. Andrew Torrez
@andrewtorrez.bsky.social
13K followers 1.9K following 3.4K posts
Practicing lawyer and cohost of the Law & Chaos podcast with @lizdye.bsky.social READ MY STUFF! lawandchaospod.com LISTEN TO MY STUFF! patreon.com/lawandchaospod he/him
![The Court can properly enjoin enforcement of the Order. “[I]t is now well
established that ‘[r]eview of the legality of Presidential action can ordinarily be obtained in a suit seeking to enjoin the officers who attempt to enforce the President’s directive.’” Chamber of Com. of the United States v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Franklin v. Mass., 505 U.S. 788, 828 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)). Accordingly, “courts have power to compel subordinate executive officials to disobey illegal Presidential commands.” Id. (quoting Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067, 1072 n.12 (D.C. Cir. 1971)). Thus, when the President issues an unlawful Executive Order, “the proper course is to seek to enjoin a member of the executive branch from carrying out the executive order at issue.” McCray v. Biden, 574 F. Supp. 3d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2021).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:mcxwgi6ytwp72kzqmujcixep/bafkreidqhp6iojz57l5hzsbfwfeat6h5o27gbfmtvghlrm6psku53svtga)
![House is a privilege—not a right. The President has set out his factual findings and provided
Plaintiffs an opportunity to contest this decision by 5:00 PM Friday, September 25, 2026.
Plaintiffs ask this Court to enjoin the President to provide them with immediate, continued
access to the White House complex, contrary to his personal judgment, on three purported grounds.
All fail. First, the President’s actions are lawful under the First Amendment. While the D.C. Circuit
has held that some areas of the White House grounds constitute a nonpublic forum, Sherrill v.
Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1977), that decision is wrong and should be overruled. But even
under Sherrill, the President’s actions must be sustained because the President has “compelling
interest[s]” in enforcing minimum standards for bona fide journalists and safeguarding national
security information. At the very least, the Government may control reporters’ access to restricted
presidential areas, such as the Oval Office, even for viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. Associated
Press v. Budowich, No. 25-5109, 2025 WL 1649265 (D.C. Cir. June 6, 2025) (“AP”). Second, the
President’s actions were not retaliatory because the Government would have taken the same action
anyway, notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ speech criticizing the President—indeed, the President has not
revoked access to other outlets that have equally criticized the President. Third, Plaintiffs are
unlikely to prevail on their due process claims because, even if they have a constitutional right to](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bfdiyietterineb3cvu3ddco/bafkreictrb2d32eol2ugcdj7pgsdllftmzcwtar4fj6oqf537cyaqp5atu)
