Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 1 of 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
)
as President of the United States,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
PEN AMERICAN CENTER, INC.,

Civil Action No. 18-cv-9433-LGS

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
1.

This complaint by Plaintiff PEN American Center, Inc. (hereinafter, “PEN

America”) arises out of official acts by the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump,
intended to stifle exercise of the constitutional protections of free speech and a free press. The
President has violated the First Amendment, and his oath to uphold the Constitution, through
directives to Administration officials to take retaliatory actions and credible public threats to use
his government powers against those who report the news in ways he does not welcome.
Although the President is free to criticize the press, he cannot use the power and authority of the
United States government to punish and stifle it.
2.

President Trump has intentionally hung a sword of Damocles over the heads of

countless writers, journalists, and media entities, including Plaintiff’s members, many of whom
work for the organizations President Trump has targeted. He has directed retaliatory actions and
threats at specific news outlets and journalists whose content and viewpoints he views as hostile
to him or his Administration, directly harming those organizations and their employees,
including Plaintiff’s members. As a result, Plaintiff’s members who work for those

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 2 of 36

organizations or who have themselves been targeted, and all journalists who report on the
President or his Administration, reasonably believe they face a credible threat of government
retaliation for carrying out the duties of their profession. Defendant Trump’s actions seek to
accomplish indirectly what he cannot do directly: impede professional and investigative
journalism, and silence criticism.
3.

From the earliest days of his presidential campaign to the present, Defendant

Trump has called the press the “enemy of the people,” an epithet used by Joseph Stalin; has
labeled any unfavorable coverage “fake news”; has singled out news organizations and
individual reporters for particular abuse; and has said it is “frankly disgusting the way the press
is able to write whatever they want to write,” adding “people should look into that.” The
President has declared war on all but the most fawning news organizations, exhibiting his
antagonism in an almost daily barrage of tweets, press statements, and directives. Threats by the
President against newspapers, networks, news sources, and individual journalists have become
the norm. According to a database compiled by the Committee to Protect Journalists, since
announcing his candidacy through his second year in office, President Trump has sent 1,339
tweets about the media that were critical, insinuating, condemning, or threatening. These
communications frequently single out news organizations or individual journalists who the
President believes have criticized his Administration.
4.

As disturbing as it is for President Trump to disparage the exercise of freedoms

protected by the First Amendment, his opinions about the press are not the basis for this lawsuit.
Trump’s attacks on the press, however, have not been limited to talk. The President and officials
acting at his direction have undertaken a variety of retaliatory acts intended to punish or
intimidate news organizations whose coverage has displeased him, including:
•

suspending the White House press credentials of reporters who the President
believes failed to show him sufficient “respect”;

2

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 3 of 36

•

revoking and threatening to revoke security clearances from former government
officials who have engaged in public commentary, including on CNN and NBC,
because they expressed criticism of the current Administration;

•

issuing an executive order to raise postal rates to punish online retailer
Amazon.com because Jeff Bezos, its chief shareholder and CEO, owns the
Washington Post, whose coverage of his Administration the President finds
objectionable;

•

directing the Department of Justice to challenge a vertical merger between Time
Warner and AT&T because of his antagonism to Time Warner subsidiary CNN
and its news coverage of his Administration; and

•

threatening to revoke NBC’s and other television stations’ broadcast licenses in
retaliation for coverage the President dislikes.

Plaintiff PEN’s members include journalists and other media personnel who hold White House
press credentials, and who work for the Washington Post, CNN, and NBC, who have thus been
injured by Defendant Trump’s retaliation against them and their employers.
5.

Defendant Trump’s actions infringe two of our most coveted liberties, the

freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Freedom of speech is an essential component of a
functioning democracy. Benjamin Franklin identified freedom of speech as the “principal pillar”
of a free society and the primary bulwark against tyranny. A leader with “the power to punish
for words,” he wrote, “would be armed with a weapon the most destructive and terrible.”
6.

To ensure no American leader would wield such destructive power, and because

they viewed it as vital to maintaining a democracy, our Founders guaranteed freedom of the
press in our Constitution and entrusted our court system with protecting it. As the Supreme
Court said in 1936, “[t]he newspapers, magazines, and other journals of the country, it is safe to
say, have shed and continue to shed, more light on the public and business affairs of the nation
than any other instrumentality of publicity; and since informed public opinion is the most potent
of all restraints upon misgovernment, the suppression or abridgement of the publicity afforded by

3

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 4 of 36

a free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern.” Grosjean v. Am. Press Co.,
297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936).
7.

Together, the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and a free press

reflect “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be
uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and
sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” New York Times Co.
v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
8.

It is also “well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive

information and ideas,” Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972), and that the
government cannot “orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates,” United
States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 728 (2012). Together, these protections prohibit the government
from attempting to restrict or otherwise improperly influence the news coverage of government
activities through retaliatory acts and threats.
9.

Defendant Trump, whose retaliatory actions and threats cast a discernible chill

on the free press and those who rely on it for information, presents an extreme case, but
American history has seen other attempts by both federal and state executives to use the power of
their offices to infringe the First Amendment. When such abuses have been discovered, and
when given the opportunity to do so, courts have not hesitated to enforce the First Amendment
and prevent the abuse of power.
10.

The Supreme Court first addressed constitutional limits on the government’s

authority to suppress criticism of public officials in Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S.
697 (1931). The Court held that the First Amendment barred a state law that authorized
suppression of malicious, scandalous, and defamatory newspapers, magazines, or other
periodicals. The case involved an injunction barring the publication of a “scandal sheet” called

4

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 5 of 36

The Saturday Press, in which “[m]any of the statements so highly improbable as to compel a
finding that they are false,” and “[i]n every edition slanderous and defamatory matter
predominates to the practical exclusion of all else.” Id. at 724 (Butler, J., dissenting). Among
other things, Near set a constitutional baseline that the government has no authority to define
what it thinks is “fake news” and use the machinery of government to suppress it.
11.

As First Amendment doctrine evolved, officials periodically sought to evade

constitutional review by using informal tools or by using neutral laws in a retaliatory way.
Governor Huey Long of Louisiana, whose tenure was criticized by the state’s leading
newspapers, punished big city newspapers for their coverage while at the same time attempted to
avoid judicial scrutiny by having the legislature enact a seemingly neutral tax targeting only
those publications with a weekly circulation exceeding 20,000 copies. The Supreme Court
struck down the measure as a type of tax “with a long history of hostile misuse against the
freedom of the press.” Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 250. It declared the scheme “a deliberate and
calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public
is entitled.” Id. at 250.
12.

Presidents from across the political spectrum have used surreptitious methods to

abuse their government powers to punish or discipline members of the press they believed
treated them unfairly. Franklin D. Roosevelt had the FBI wiretap reporters from what he
considered to be “unfriendly” newspapers, denied press credentials to critics of his foreign
policy, and subjected hostile publishers to tax audits. The Kennedy Administration initiated, and
the Johnson Administration continued, a plan to coordinate FCC Fairness Doctrine complaints to
target radio stations that aired right-wing editorials, and to focus on small market stations that
could not afford to respond. The Nixon Administration was particularly antagonistic to the press
and subjected those on an “enemies list” to illegal wiretaps, tax audits, and office searches. It

5

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 6 of 36

threatened to take action against broadcast licenses owned by the Washington Post in retaliation
for its coverage of the Watergate scandal, proposed an official monitoring system through the
FCC, and manipulated tax and antitrust enforcement efforts to punish the press.
13.

Many of these efforts to muzzle the press through misuse of governmental power

escaped judicial scrutiny because they were not discovered until years – often decades – after the
fact. More savvy presidents took pains to conceal their efforts to subvert the press because they
accepted – publicly, at least – the limitations imposed by the First Amendment and thus sought
to avoid disclosure of illegal behavior. Not so with this Administration. President Trump shows
open contempt for freedom of the press and the right to dissent, and reveals his illegitimate
censorial motives almost daily; he announces who he plans to punish and crows about it after he
has done so. The President’s tweets are a confession; his boasts at innumerable rallies confirm
his illicit intent.
14.

Defendant Trump’s statements, whether made as a candidate or once in office,

illustrate his purpose to use executive power to suppress and retaliate against what he perceives
to be unfair or unfavorable press coverage. They reveal the “official” explanations for
governmental actions targeting the press are pretextual, and show the actual purpose is to punish
or intimidate those who question the Administration’s policies.
15.

The President’s statements are relevant to assess the constitutionality of his

actions. Even when acting in areas of expansive executive authority, such as control over
immigration, an area considered “largely immune from judicial control,” Trump v. Hawaii, 138
S. Ct. 2392, 2402 (2018) (citation omitted), the Supreme Court has permitted reviewing courts to
consider such statements and to “look behind the face” of an official action to determine the
President’s actual purpose, id. at 2420. But while the President’s initiatives may survive scrutiny
in areas where executive authority is at its zenith and is subject only to rational basis review,

6

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 7 of 36

such is not the case where his primary purpose is to retaliate against an adversarial press
protected by the First Amendment.
16.

Using governmental authority to retaliate against the exercise of free speech or

press is never legitimate. Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 136 S. Ct. 1412, 1418 (2016). “Official
reprisal for protected speech ‘offends the Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit exercise of
the protected right.’” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006) (quoting Crawford-El v.
Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588 n.10 (1998) (brackets in original)). The First Amendment thus
“prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions . . . for
speaking out.” Id. Even seemingly neutral actions violate this constitutional rule where
circumstantial evidence demonstrates those actions were taken because of speech’s content or a
speaker’s viewpoint. See Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 138 S. Ct. 1945 (2018). This
constitutional principle prohibits the government from denying or revoking even privileges to
which a person does not necessarily have a “right,” such as a tax exemption, a security clearance,
or access to White House briefings, when the denial is motivated by a retaliatory purpose. Perry
v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).
17.

Where the President’s own words and actions reveal a manifest intent to

intimidate and punish the press, it is the government’s burden to show its actions were not for a
retaliatory purpose. Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283–87 (1977). When
such criticism “transforms into an attempt to use the powers of a governmental office to
intimidate or to discipline the press or one of its members because of what appears in print, a
compelling governmental interest that cannot be served by less restrictive means must be shown
for such use to meet Constitutional standards.” Borreca v. Fasi, 369 F. Supp. 906, 910 (D. Haw.
1974).

7

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 8 of 36

18.

This is the natural province for judicial action – to constrain executive power

when it exceeds constitutional bounds. It is particularly vital when the President seeks to
undermine the independence of the press, because “[o]nly a free and unrestrained press can
effectively expose deception in government.” New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S.
713, 717 (1971) (Black, J., concurring).
19.

Defendant Trump has violated the First Amendment through his direct

punishment of individual journalists and media organizations and their employees – including
Plaintiff’s members – and acts that cause reasonable journalists to believe that the Defendant will
use his government powers to retaliate against critical speech. These acts also prevent Plaintiff
and its members from receiving speech of investigative journalists, writers and commentators
who operate free from the President’s efforts to chill and intimidate.
20.

Defendant Trump has adopted the language and the tactics of authoritarians who

bolster their power by quashing dissent. But the Framers of our Constitution foresaw, and
designed a system that could withstand, such an assault on our basic freedoms and our
democracy. Our institutions, and especially our courts, exist precisely to check such abuses of
power.
21.

Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that this Court maintain the constitutional

balance the Framers envisioned, and issue orders (a) declaring that Defendant Trump’s
retaliatory actions violate the First Amendment, and (b) enjoining Defendant Trump from
directing any officer, employee, agency, or other agent or instrumentality of the United States
government to take any action intended to retaliate against disfavored speech.

8

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 9 of 36

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the claims in

this action arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, specifically the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
23.

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Defendant is an officer

or agency of the United States and Plaintiff PEN America resides in the District.
PARTIES
24.

Plaintiff PEN America, a section 501(c)(3) organization headquartered in New

York City, is an association of writers and other literary and media professionals, including
journalists and publishers of information about the President and his Administration. Plaintiff’s
mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties
that make it possible. PEN America’s bedrock work is long-term advocacy on behalf of
individual writers who are being punished because of the content of their speech. PEN America
monitors the government’s interactions with writers and journalists and produces informational
content related to its advocacy work.
25.

Plaintiff PEN America has a traditional voluntary membership structure and

includes members who work for journalistic organizations that have been subjected to threats
and retaliatory acts from the Trump Administration. Its membership includes at least six
members who work for, and whose work is published through CNN; at least eleven members
who work for, and whose work is published through, the Washington Post; and at least six
members who work for, and whose work is published through, NBC. These members, in some
cases individually and otherwise through their employers, have been direct targets of Defendant
Trump’s threats and retaliatory acts to punish their own and their employers’ speech.

9

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 10 of 36

26.

Plaintiff PEN America includes members who themselves hold White House

press credentials, and many others who work for seventeen organizations that hold White House
press credentials. These members, in some cases individually and otherwise through their
employers, have been direct targets of Defendant Trump’s threats and retaliatory acts to punish
their own and their employers’ speech.
27.

Plaintiff’s members work for a wide variety of media entities, including

organizations whose mission is to gather and report the news. In addition to the organizations
identified above, Plaintiff’s members work for the following organizations, among others: the
Associated Press, The New York Times, The Atlantic, Daily Beast, Los Angeles Times, Politico,
The Boston Globe, and The Guardian. Plaintiff’s members write about, report on, and produce
media content related to American government and politics. Plaintiff’s members produce, and
plan to produce in the future, work that is held to the highest standards of accuracy, but that is
often critical of the actions of politicians and governments, including the President and his
Administration. This reporting informs the public about the workings of the government,
promotes government transparency and enables the public to hold their representatives
accountable. Plaintiff’s members also rely on information produced by journalists, news
analysts, and opinion contributors who work for CNN, the Washington Post, NBC, and
journalists who hold White House press credentials, to do their work.
28.

Defendant Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the United States, a position

in which he has served since January 20, 2017.
FACTS
A.

President Trump’s Unconstitutional Acts
29.

As President, Defendant Trump exercises authority over the Executive Branch,

controlling agencies’ actions through Executive Orders and the Appointments Clause. President

10

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 11 of 36

Trump has repeatedly threatened to use, and has used, government power to retaliate against
media companies, journalists, and their sources for the content of their commentary and
coverage. Defendant Trump has taken action to disrupt White House press access by disfavored
reporters, ordered the revocation of security clearances held by critics of his Administration,
ordered an increase in postal rates as punishment for critical coverage by the Washington Post,
directed a merger review in retaliation for news coverage by CNN, and threatened to revoke
broadcast licenses held by television stations owned by or affiliated with the NBC network.
Actions to Limit the Access of White House Reporters
30.

Defendant Trump and members of the Administration under his direction have

acted to selectively deny disfavored journalists access to information from the White House.
31.

The Defendant’s practice of denying press access based on reporters’ perceived

viewpoints dates back to his presidential campaign. Prior to the election, on August 25, 2015,
Defendant Trump had Jorge Ramos, Univision’s lead anchor, removed from a press conference
after Ramos tried to ask Defendant Trump a question about immigration policy. During the
campaign, Defendant Trump also barred reporters from several news organizations, including the
Washington Post, from obtaining press credentials at rallies, news conferences, and other events.
32.

Once in office, Defendant Trump threatened journalists whose coverage or

questioning he perceived as unfavorable with revocation of their access to official
Administration and White House events.
33.

On information and belief, Defendant Trump repeatedly directed White House

staff to ban reporters critical of his Administration from covering official events or to revoke
press credentials. This included reporters from the Washington Post, CNN, and NBC News.
Defendant specifically told his staff to consider blacklisting Jim Acosta of CNN, a PEN member,

11

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 12 of 36

and April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks in retaliation for their coverage of which
he disapproves.
34.

On February 24, 2017, Defendant Trump’s then-White House Press Secretary

Sean Spicer held an off-camera question-and-answer session before only an “expanded pool” of
journalists in Spicer’s office rather than on camera in the press briefing room. The White House
denied requests for access to the session from The New York Times, Politico, CNN, The
Guardian, BBC, and others, based on Defendant Trump’s disapproval of their coverage.
35.

On December 12, 2017, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders

told PEN member Jim Acosta that she would block him from future access if he attempted to ask
the President questions during a bill signing that day.
36.

On May 9, 2018, Defendant Trump threatened to revoke the credentials of all

reporters whose coverage he finds negative, tweeting “The Fake News is working overtime. Just
reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else,
91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working
with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?”
37.

On July 25, 2018, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and

Communications Director Bill Shine barred CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins from a Rose Garden
press event because Collins had earlier asked the President questions that the White House
deemed “inappropriate.” One purpose of this action was to send a message to other reporters
that they too might be barred from events or have their credentials revoked if they produced
coverage critical of the President or his Administration.
38.

On November 7, 2018, CNN reporter and PEN member Jim Acosta asked a series

of questions of President Trump concerning a migrant caravan that was then moving toward the
U.S.-Mexico border. Defendant Trump responded by telling Acosta “you should let me run the

12

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 13 of 36

country . . . and if you did . . . , your ratings would be much better.” When Acosta attempted to
ask a follow-up question, the President called him “a rude, terrible person” and said he
“shouldn’t be working for CNN.” Later that day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee
Sanders announced that the White House had suspended “the hard pass of the reporter involved
until further notice.”
39.

A so-called “hard pass” gives the holder access to designated areas for journalists

in the White House, on Air Force One, and in other locations. This credential is necessary for
members of the White House press corps to do their work.
40.

The White House attempted to justify revocation of Acosta’s press credential by

falsely accusing Acosta of “plac[ing] his hands” on a White House intern who tried to take the
microphone from him and because of a breach of decorum. However, an undoctored video of
the event contradicted this justification. Subsequently, the White House revised its justification
to be that Acosta failed “to treat the White House with respect.”
41.

On November 9, 2018, Defendant Trump threatened to revoke the credentials of

other journalists who failed to show him “respect.” While doing so, Defendant Trump singled
out April Ryan, White House correspondent for the American Urban Radio Networks, calling
her “a loser” who “doesn’t know what the hell she is doing.” On information and belief, Ryan
subsequently received threats of physical harm and hate mail, and felt compelled to hire a
personal bodyguard.
42.

On November 13, 2018, CNN and Jim Acosta sued Defendant Trump, Sanders,

Shine, then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, and others, alleging that the revocation of
Acosta’s pass was content-based suppression of speech in violation of the First Amendment, and
that the revocation violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

13

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 14 of 36

43.

On November 16, 2018, Judge Timothy Kelly issued a preliminary injunction

restoring Acosta’s pass on the grounds that CNN and Acosta were likely to prevail on at least
their due process claim and that they were suffering irreparable harm from the loss of Acosta’s
White House access. Judge Kelly did not reach the First Amendment claim.
44.

On November 19, 2018, the White House restored Acosta’s press credentials, and

CNN and Acosta dismissed their lawsuit.
45.

Also on November 19, 2018, Press Secretary Sanders informed the White House

press corps that Acosta’s hard pass had been restored, but that “[w]e have also notified him of
certain rules that will govern White House press conferences going forward.” The email listed
the following rules:
1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will
yield the floor to other journalists;
2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a
follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has
been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;
3) “Yielding the floor” includes, when applicable, physically surrendering the
microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner;
4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)–(3) may result in suspension or revocation of
the journalist’s hard pass.
46.

The White House expressly acknowledged it implemented these restrictions

because of “behavior Mr. Acosta displayed at the November 7, 2018 press conference” and “the
position taken by CNN.”
47.

The November 19, 2018 email from Press Secretary Sanders added that “a more

elaborate and comprehensive set of rules might need to be devised . . . for journalist conduct in
the open (non-press room) areas inside and outside the White House and for Air Force One.” It
added that such restrictions could be adopted “[i]f unprofessional behavior occurs in those
settings, or if a court should decide that explicit rules are required to regulate conduct there.”

14

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 15 of 36

48.

These rules are a pretext for future content-based restrictions on the speech of

journalists who seek to cover the White House and a limitation on the ability of listeners to hear
that speech. They place all members of the White House press corps at greater risk of retaliation,
including Plaintiff’s members who hold White House credentials, and chill the speech of those
journalists.
Revocation of Security Clearances
49.

On July 23, 2018, White House Press Secretary Sanders announced that

Defendant Trump was considering stripping six former national security officials of their
security clearances, citing the officials’ public commentary regarding the Russia investigation.
These six officials included former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey, former National Security
Adviser Susan Rice, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and former National Security
Agency Director Michael Hayden.
50.

Former top government officials traditionally retain security clearances after

leaving office so they can advise their successors and continue to assist the government.
Clearances are typically revoked for cause—for example, due to security concerns such as
financial distress, alcoholism, or mishandling of classified information. The issuing agency, not
the President, traditionally initiates the process for revoking a security clearance—a process that
usually involves memoranda explaining why the clearance is being withdrawn and sometimes an
opportunity for appealing the revocation.
51.

Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and Hayden are frequent contributors to the press

whose commentary and contributions are sources of information for Plaintiff’s members, and
each had publicly criticized Defendant Trump’s actions prior to Sanders’ announcement.

15

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 16 of 36

52.

Brennan served as a contributor to MSNBC and had repeatedly challenged

Defendant Trump’s actions in office both on television and via Twitter. In particular, his
comments concerned alleged collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016
presidential election. Clapper joined CNN as a contributor in mid-2017, and vocally challenged
Trump’s actions on numerous occasions. Comey, McCabe, and Hayden had all likewise
criticized Defendant Trump’s Administration in the press or on social media.
53.

On August 15, 2018, Defendant Trump acted on his threat to revoke the security

clearance of former CIA Director and MSNBC contributor John Brennan because of Brennan’s
critical speech. Defendant Trump’s action against Brennan appears to be the first time in history
that a U.S. president has ever issued or revoked a security clearance outside of the established
process or for reasons other than security concerns.
54.

The revocation of Brennan’s security clearance was purely retaliatory. As a result

of Defendant Trump’s retaliatory act against Brennan, Plaintiff’s members and other contributors
to the press—particularly those who hold security clearances—have an actual and well-founded
fear that Defendant Trump may retaliate against them for speech that he dislikes.
Executive Order to Raise Postal Rates
55.

Defendant Trump has repeatedly threatened to use the U.S. Postal Service

(“Postal Service”) and its rate structure to retaliate against Jeff Bezos, who is chief shareholder
and CEO of the online retailer Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), whose business model is
dependent upon reasonable shipping rates, and also the owner of the Washington Post (also
referred to herein as “the Post”), a frequent target of the President’s wrath.
56.

From the beginning of his campaign for President, Defendant Trump repeatedly

attacked the Washington Post for its coverage, calling it biased, fictitious, and “a disgrace to
journalism.” In a 2016 interview, he called the Post “a political instrument” that was writing

16

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 17 of 36

“bad” and “wrong” stories “with no proper information,” and accused its reporters of writing a
“false” book about him. He routinely has called the Washington Post “fake news” and
personally attacked its writers.
57.

Since taking office Defendant Trump has frequently denounced the accuracy of

the Post’s reporting when it published unflattering stories about his Administration. On April 8,
2018, for example, after the Post ran a story about John Kelly’s frustrations as Chief of Staff,
Defendant Trump tweeted: “The Washington Post is far more fiction than fact. Story after story
is made up garbage - more like a poorly written novel than good reporting. Always quoting
sources (not names), many of which do not exist. Story on John Kelly isn’t true, just another hit
job!”
58.

By the end of 2018, Defendant Trump and John Kelly were no longer on speaking

terms, and Kelly had resigned as White House Chief of Staff.
59.

Defendant Trump acted on his displeasure at the Post’s coverage by directly

threatening the newspaper’s owner Bezos through his main asset, Amazon. During the
presidential campaign, Defendant Trump repeatedly tied threatened future action against
Amazon to his objections over the Post’s coverage. As Defendant Trump put it at a rally on
February 26, 2016, while referring to Bezos and Amazon: “If I become president, oh do they
have problems. They’re going to have such problems.” On information and belief, candidate
Trump intended this as a message to Bezos and Amazon shareholders that he could – and would
– use his official powers to adversely affect Amazon’s tax status and subject it to antitrust
enforcement.
60.

In a May 12, 2016, interview, following a series of Washington Post reports that

critically scrutinized Defendant Trump’s business and financial dealings, and that later
culminated in two Washington Post reporters publishing a book, Trump Revealed, Defendant

17

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 18 of 36

Trump accused Bezos of “using the Washington Post for power so that the politicians in
Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed.” He also declared that “Amazon is
getting away with murder, tax-wise.”
61.

During the same interview, Defendant Trump denigrated the Washington Post

reporters’ then-forthcoming book, Trump Revealed, calling it “all false stuff because the stories
are so wrong,” and claiming that Bezos is “worried about me” because “he’s got a huge antitrust
problem because he’s controlling so much. Amazon is controlling so much of what they’re
doing.”
62.

Once in office, Defendant Trump continued to threaten the use of governmental

power to harm Bezos and the Washington Post in retaliation for the paper’s reporting. In July
2017, Defendant Trump twice consulted billionaire investor Leon Cooperman about targeting
Amazon using antitrust law. On information and belief, Defendant Trump was motivated to
challenge Amazon’s status primarily by animus toward the Post for its critical coverage and his
desire to use his regulatory powers to influence and shape media coverage of his Administration.
63.

On June 27, 2017, the Washington Post reported that the Trump Organization had

displayed fabricated copies of Time magazine depicting Donald Trump on the cover at several of
its clubs. The next day, Defendant Trump tweeted, “The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes
referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE
NEWS!”
64.

On July 24, 2017, Defendant Trump complained on Twitter about the Washington

Post’s coverage of his Syria policy, accusing the Post of “fabricat[ing] the facts.” He then
posted a second tweet suggesting that the “Fake News Washington Post” was “being used as a
lobbyist weapon against Congress to keep Politicians from looking into Amazon no-tax
monopoly.”

18

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 19 of 36

65.

On December 29, 2017, following a Washington Post story on the

Administration’s internal deliberations on how to handle “worries of a tough year ahead,” and a
satirical end-of-year piece entitled “Was 2017 the end of something or just the beginning?,”
Defendant Trump tweeted that the Postal Service should be charging more to deliver Amazon’s
packages: “Why is the United States Post Office [sic], which is losing many billions of dollars a
year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon
richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer? Should be charging MUCH MORE!”
66.

On information and belief, Defendant Trump has repeatedly been told by his staff

that his assertions about Amazon’s adverse impact on the Postal Service are incorrect.
Nevertheless, the President has continued to repeat these false claims and to advocate that higher
postal rates be imposed on Amazon.
67.

Defendant Trump escalated his threats of action against Amazon following

unflattering reports in the Washington Post detailing the adverse negative impact on Trump’s
family businesses caused by allegations involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Robert
Mueller’s investigation of the Defendant. The President called the Post a “lobbyist” and
“weapon” for Bezos, and once again threatened to raise Amazon’s shipping rates.
68.

In a series of tweets between March 29 and April 3, 2018, Defendant Trump

repeated the same false claims about Amazon and again threatened to raise its postal shipping
rates. As a result of these threats, Amazon sustained a $60 billion decline in market value.
69.

On April 12, 2018, Defendant Trump followed through on his retaliatory threats,

issuing an Executive Order creating a Task Force on the United States Postal Service (the
(“USPS Task Force”) and directing it to review the Postal Service’s “unsustainable financial
path.” The order included several provisions directed at Amazon, including an order to review
the “expansion and pricing of the package delivery market.” On information and belief,

19

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 20 of 36

President Trump had by this time repeatedly and personally directed the Postmaster General to
raise Amazon’s rates.
70.

Defendant Trump’s attacks on Amazon were motivated primarily by animus

toward Bezos and the Washington Post arising from of unflattering news coverage of him and
his Administration. An April 13, 2018, article in Vanity Fair quoted White House sources as
saying that President Trump “has zero respect” for the Post and wants to “fuck with” Bezos as a
result.
71.

Defendant Trump continued to threaten further action against Bezos and Amazon

and identified his motivation as the Washington Post’s coverage of his Administration. On July
23, 2018, immediately following Post reports that President Trump was unhappy with the
progress of talks with North Korea, the President tweeted that “[t]he Amazon Washington Post
has gone crazy against me ever since they lost the Internet Tax Case in the U.S. Supreme Court,”
referring to South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018). He then renewed his threats
to take antitrust action against Amazon and to raise its postal delivery rates. President Trump
tweeted, “Next up is the U.S. Post Office [sic] which they use, at a fraction of real cost, as their
‘delivery boy’ for a BIG percentage of their packages. . . . In my opinion the Washington Post is
nothing more than an expensive (the paper loses a fortune) lobbyist for Amazon. Is it used as
protection against antitrust claims which many feel should be brought?”
72.

On October 11, 2018, the Postal Service announced proposed rate increases,

including a proposed twelve-percent increase for the Parcel Select service used by Amazon.
This action by the Postal Service would not have been taken but for the President’s clearly
expressed desire to punish Amazon for the reporting of the Washington Post.
73.

On December 4, 2018, the USPS Task Force recommended increases in rates for

“purely commercial use of package delivery services” and “mail products that are not deemed an

20

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 21 of 36

essential service,” which could encompass the majority of Amazon’s deliveries through the
Postal Service. The USPS would not have reviewed package rates that impact Amazon’s
business but for Defendant’s expressed intent to punish Amazon for the reporting of the
Washington Post.
DOJ Enforcement Actions and Threatened Regulation
74.

Defendant Trump has repeatedly threatened Department of Justice (“DOJ”)

antitrust enforcement actions against media companies he views as critical of him, taking
particular aim at CNN.
75.

Defendant Trump has frequently expressed animus toward CNN for the content of

its reporting. He has attacked CNN on Twitter, in speeches, interviews, and press conferences,
calling it “fake news” and “garbage,” and has refused to answer questions from CNN reporters
during press conferences, calling its coverage “terrible.”
76.

On information and belief, President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met

with CNN leadership in early 2017 and demanded that “20 percent of its staff” be fired for their
coverage of the 2016 election.
77.

Defendant Trump has threatened specific regulatory actions targeting CNN.

During the 2016 campaign, Defendant Trump said that once he gained control of the DOJ he
planned to block a proposed merger between Time Warner, CNN’s parent company, and AT&T,
and made clear his retaliatory motive for doing so. On October 22, 2016, at a rally in
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, he denounced the AT&T–Time Warner merger, telling his audience
that CNN was part of the media “power structure” trying to suppress his votes. “AT&T is
buying Time Warner and thus CNN,” Defendant Trump said, declaring it “a deal we will not
approve in my administration.”

21

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 22 of 36

78.

Once in office, Defendant Trump followed through on this threat. On information

and belief, during the pendency of the AT&T–Time Warner merger review process, advisers to
President Trump discussed using the merger approval application as a potential point of leverage
over CNN. DOJ demanded the sale of CNN as a condition of its approval of the merger, leading
a source close to the merger process to state that “[t]his has become political . . . . It’s all about
CNN.”
79.

On November 20, 2017, the Antitrust Division filed a lawsuit to block the Time

Warner–AT&T merger. On information and belief, the asserted antitrust theories the
government advanced were pretextual. Because AT&T and Time-Warner are not content
competitors, their proposed merger was a “vertical” merger, a form of merger that federal
government regulators have not sought to block since the Nixon Administration.
80.

Makan Delrahim, the head of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, had publicly stated

before joining the Trump Administration that he saw no problem with the Time Warner–AT&T
merger, noting it was a typical “vertical merger” and saying: “I think it’ll get a lot of attention,
but I don’t see this as a major antitrust problem.” After working in the White House Counsel’s
Office with President Trump, however, and upon taking charge of the Antitrust Division,
Delrahim authorized the lawsuit to block the merger.
81.

On June 12, 2018, Judge Richard Leon rejected the antitrust claims and approved

the AT&T-Time Warner merger without conditions. The District Court’s decision is currently on
appeal before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
82.

Defendant Trump’s threats to use the DOJ to influence the flow of information to

the public are not limited to CNN. On August 28, 2018, he complained, via Twitter, that:
Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the
viewing/reporting of Fake News Media. In other words, they have
it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is
BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair

22

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 23 of 36

Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of . . . results on ‘Trump News’
are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google &
others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding
information and news that is good. They are controlling what we
can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be
addressed!
83.

Within hours of President Trump’s tweet, White House economic advisor Larry

Kudlow announced that the Trump Administration is “taking a look” at imposing regulations on
Google.
84.

On September 5, 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced his

intention to convene a meeting of Republican state attorneys general to discuss a possible federal
investigation of whether Google, Facebook, and other social media companies are limiting the
flow of speech and violating antitrust laws.
85.

On September 22, 2018, the White House leaked a draft Executive Order that

would instruct federal law enforcement and antitrust agencies to open investigations into social
media companies. On information and belief, this leak was intended to, and did, have a negative
market impact on these companies. The information was leaked as a “warning shot” to
intimidate the companies named because of the information they transmit.
86.

Members of PEN America are employed by companies that were targets of this

“warning shot.” Plaintiff’s membership includes employees of CNN, Google, Facebook, and
other companies that have been adversely affected by Defendant Trump’s retaliatory acts.
Defendant’s actions were intended to chill the content created by Plaintiff’s members and have
had the intended effect.
Threats to Revoke Broadcast Licenses
87.

Defendant Trump has also threatened to revoke the broadcast licenses of media

entities that he views as critics in an attempt to punish and suppress their lawful speech and
reporting activities.
23

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 24 of 36

88.

On October 11, 2017, the President lashed out at NBC on Twitter for its reporting

on statements the President made about nuclear weapons at a Pentagon meeting. “Fake
@NBCNews made up a story that I wanted a “tenfold” increase in our U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Pure fiction, made up to demean. NBC = CNN!”
89.

Minutes later, Defendant Trump followed that tweet with another threatening

broadcast licenses of television stations owned and operated by NBC. “With all of the Fake
News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their
License? Bad for country!”
90.

The same day, Defendant Trump broadened his threat to more outlets: “Network

news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if
appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!”
91.

On December 16, 2018, Defendant Trump criticized NBC again on Twitter,

claiming the network’s coverage and programming is illegal: “A REAL scandal is the one sided
coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night
Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in
courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion?”
92.
B.

Members of PEN America are employed by NBC.

The Harm to Plaintiff’s Members from Defendant Trump’s Unconstitutional Acts
Harm to Plaintiff’s Members’ Right to Speak and Cover the News
93.

Defendant Trump’s retaliatory directives and credible threats to use government

power to punish CNN, the Washington Post, NBC, and White House correspondents for the
content of their coverage have inflicted financial and reputational harm on those news
organizations, and created the future threat of retaliation for their ongoing coverage of the
Defendant and his Administration. These retaliatory acts and threats have adversely affected

24

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 25 of 36

Plaintiff’s members who work for CNN, the Washington Post, NBC, and those who hold or work
for entities that hold White House press credentials.
94.

Plaintiff’s members who work for other news organizations or otherwise write

about the Defendant and his Administration have also been affected. Defendant Trump’s
retaliatory directives and threats to use government power against his critics improperly seek to
suppress speech and influence the content of news reporting. Defendant’s use of government
power to punish his media critics creates an atmosphere in which all journalists must work under
the threat of government retaliation. This environment, underscored by Defendant Trump’s
campaign of intimidation against critical reporting, casts a chill on speech that – even if braved
and overcome by diligent and courageous reporters – has reshaped the environment in which our
media operates and constitutes an ongoing First Amendment violation.
95.

Plaintiff’s members are aware that Defendant Trump has directed his ire towards

countless journalists and media outlets and have acted in accordance with their reasonable belief
that he could do the same to them.
96.

A research firm surveyed Plaintiff’s members and found that 1 percent had been

fired or laid off because of the Defendant’s actions; 2 percent had been demoted, replaced, or
denied an assignment because of the Defendant’s actions; 4 percent had been asked to make
changes to a piece because their editor or publisher wanted to avoid controversy arising from
Defendant’s reaction; 31 percent had “avoided posting, writing, or speaking on a particular topic
due to concern about personal or professional repercussions” that would result from Defendant’s
retaliatory acts; and 52 percent of respondents believed public criticism of the current
Administration might put them at risk.
97.

Many of the reporters and outlets that have been the direct targets of Defendant

Trump’s retaliatory actions are, or work for, sizable companies. Such large companies have

25

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 26 of 36

significant resources with which to defend themselves and can afford to assert their First
Amendment rights, but such entities also provide the Defendant with more opportunities for
using regulatory measures as a form of retaliation. All media outlets and journalists covering the
White House and this Administration must factor in the President’s threats and acts of retaliation
against critical coverage as they do their work. All are aware that a prominent article, novel
critique or new relevation may provoke reprisals from the President. Smaller outlets,
independent media, freelancers, or other more vulnerable populations of writers—many of whom
are Plaintiff’s members or employ Plaintiff’s members—do not have the same resources and are
particularly vulnerable to Defendant’s retaliatory actions and threats.
98.

Defendant’s retaliatory actions are sufficient to cause journalists and news

organizations of reasonable firmness, including Plaintiff’s members, to alter their coverage of
this Administration.
Harm to Plaintiff’s Members’ Right to Receive Speech
99.

Plaintiff’s members are also listeners and recipients of speech, both from other

members, as well as from news sources and commentators and other media organizations. Such
speech communicates “social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences,” Red
Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969), that informs reporting by Plaintiff’s
members and facilitates discussion and debate about matters of public interest.
100.

Defendant Trump’s retaliatory actions and threats directed at the Washington

Post, Amazon, Time Warner, CNN, NBC, security clearance holders, the White House press
corps, and other news organizations and journalists, are designed to unduly influence the content
and tenor of news reporting on the President and his Administration, and to control public
discussion. Journalists at CNN, the Washington Post, NBC, and other organizations targeted by
the Defendant are willing speakers whose ability to provide news coverage unaffected by

26

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 27 of 36

government retaliation and threats has been harmed by Defendant’s actions. Plaintiff’s members
rely on uncensored and independent coverage from news outlets that is free from governmentimposed chill in their own work, and on a media environment free from governmental efforts to
deter critical coverage through retaliation.
101.

Defendant Trump’s retaliatory uses of government power, and his ongoing threats

to use such power, harm Plaintiff’s members by jeopardizing their access to information and
commentary about the Administration. Plaintiff’s members are thereby deprived of their right to
receive speech by Defendant’s actions.
C.

Harm to Plaintiff’s Organization from Defendant’s Unconstitutional Acts
Direct Harm to Plaintiff as an Organization

102.

Defendant Trump’s retaliatory directives and credible threats to punish journalists

and media companies for the content of their speech have caused a perceptible impairment of
Plaintiff’s organizational activities, forcing Plaintiff to divert monetary and non-monetary
resources in response, and impeding Plaintiff from fully carrying out other facets of its mission.
103.

Plaintiff’s primary mission is to defend the liberties that make creative expression

possible. Its work consists of long-term advocacy on behalf of individual writers who are being
punished because of their work both internationally and in the United States.
104.

Defendant’s illegal acts have forced Plaintiff to divert resources previously

directed to advocating for free expression overseas to responding to Defendant’s First
Amendment violations.
105.

Immediately following the 2016 election, Plaintiff’s Board of Directors

determined that members of the media who covered Defendant Trump in a way he perceived to
be critical would likely be targeted for punishment by the government at the Defendant’s

27

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 28 of 36

direction. This conclusion was based on Defendant’s credible threats during his campaign to use
government power to punish media critics once he became President.
106.

Plaintiff has expended capital and resources in response to Defendant Trump’s

retaliatory directives and threats to harm journalists and media companies. Plaintiff hired a fulltime Senior Director of Free Expression Programs, a significant percentage of whose work is
devoted to defending the American free press against the Defendant’s retaliatory actions.
Plaintiff also hired a First Amendment Attorney to serve as Director of U.S. Free Expression
Programs to focus on defending the American press against the Defendant’s actions. In doing
so, Plaintiff created two positions with full or partial responsibility of focusing on the threats
Defendant Trump poses to journalists and their free expression, expending several hundred
thousand dollars in organizational funds.
107.

As a result of the Defendant’s retaliatory directives and credible threats to media

organizations and journalists, Plaintiff established and staffed, for the first time, a Washington,
D.C. office with a significant expenditure of organizational funds. Plaintiff did so to enhance its
ability to be in close proximity to the nation’s capital to defend the freedom of the American
press against the Defendant’s actions.
108.

Responding to Defendant’s threats and retaliatiory acts have absorbed a large

percentage of Plantiff’s staff’s time, particularly for the CEO, Senior Director of Free Expression
Programs, Washington Director, Deputy Director of Free Expression Policy & Research,
Communications Director, External Relations Manager, Online Editor, and Social Media
Manager.
109.

At substantial expense, Plaintiff commissioned a research firm to survey

Plaintiff’s members in order to monitor the impact of Defendant’s retaliatory directives and
threats to suppress media criticism on its members.

28

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 29 of 36

110.

Directly in response to Defendant’s threats and retaliatiory acts against members

of the press, Plaintiff has held large events and protests, initiated widely circulated petitions,
released detailed research reports, and published a number of blog posts, articles, and statements.
111.

Plaintiff has been forced to divert organizational resources away from other

mission-critical activities to counter Defendant’s retaliatory directives and credible threats
against journalists. Before Defendant’s election, U.S.-focused advocacy represented a smaller
percentage of Plaintiff’s free expression work. Under the Trump Administration it has
essentially come to equal, and at times exceed, Plaintiff’s internationally-focused activities.
Initiatives undertaken by Plaintiff in response to actions of the Defendant and his Administration
include: (1) creation and publication of a daily email newsletter highlighting developmens in free
expression, launched in November 2016; (2) organization of “Writers Resist,” a major public
protest and march to “defend free expression, reject hatred, and uphold truth in the face of lies
and misinformation,” held on January 15, 2017; (3) launch of “Trump the Truth Timeline,” a
running tally of incidents in the categories of “Attacks on the Truth,” “Undermining the Press,”
“Intolerance of Dissenting Viewpoints,” “Government Transparency,” and “Other Infringements
on Free Expression” by members of the Administration, which ran from January 20, 2017
through January 22, 2018; (4) release of a report entitled “Trump the Truth: Free Expression in
the President’s First 100 Days,” published April 27, 2017, which analyzed areas of serious
concern under President Trump based on the “Trump the Truth Timeline”; and (5) publication of
more than two dozen press statements, op-eds, and commentary pieces throughout 2017 and
2018 on the free expression effects of President Trump and his Administration.
Harm to Plaintiff’s Organizational Right to Receive Speech
112.

While Plaintiff’s mission is to defend press freedom as a constitutional right,

Plaintiff’s advocacy work and much of its research and analysis relies heavily on the quality

29

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 30 of 36

reporting by others. It is critical that Plaintiff have access to credible information on which to
base its arguments and actions. This information comes primarily from the work of trustworthy,
professional media outlets, including those subject to the Defendant’s retaliatory acts.
113.

Defendant has attempted to hamper the news Plaintiff receives by excluding, and

threatening to exclude, media outlets and journalists from White House briefings based on
viewpoint. White House correspondents are restricted in their ability to ask questions and face
expulsion if they fail to show the Defendant sufficient “respect.” Former government officials
who serve as news commentators have had security clearances revoked or threatened because
they criticized the Administration. Plaintiff and its members are adversely affected when
government retaliation and threats by the Defendant reduce the flow of information.
114.

Defendant has likewise attempted to dampen the content or tenor of the news by

issuing retaliatory directives and threats to punish CNN, the Washington Post, and
NBC. Journalists at CNN, the Washington Post, NBC, and other organizations targeted by the
Defendant, are willing speakers whose ability to provide news coverage unaffected by
government retaliation and threats has been harmed by Defendant’s actions. Plaintiff is thereby
deprived of its right to receive speech by Defendant’s actions.
FIRST CLAIM
Violation of the First Amendment—Retaliation for Critical Reporting
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)
115.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth

116.

The First Amendment prohibits government officials from punishing disfavored

herein.

journalists and media entities in retaliation for their speech. “[T]he law is settled that as a
general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual
to retaliatory actions.” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006).

30

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 31 of 36

117.

The President has taken actions to retaliate against specific news organizations

and journalists whose content and viewpoints he dislikes. Retaliatory actions taken under the
Defendant’s direction include:
(a)

restricting access and threatening to revoke credentials for members of the White
House press corps for asking critical questions;

(b)

revoking and threatening to revoke security clearances held by former government
officials who have criticized the current Administration as news commentators;

(c)

ordering an increase in postal rates to punish the owner of the Washington Post for
news coverage critical of the current Administration;

(d)

using antitrust enforcement actions to punish CNN for coverage critical of the
current Administration; and

(e)

threatening to rescind broadcast licenses for coverage critical of the current
Administration.

118.

Defendant Trump has taken action to intimidate writers, journalists, and media

outlets to deter criticism of him or his Administration.
119.

Defendant Trump intends the writers, journalists, and media outlets he has

attacked, and all other journalists, to conform their coverage to what he would consider “fair.”
120.

Defendant Trump has openly described the retaliatory purpose underlying his

actions targeting press organizations in public statements, speeches at rallies, and in myriad
tweets. Where the President’s own words and actions reveal a manifest intent to intimidate and
punish the press, it is the government’s burden to show its actions were not for a retaliatory
purpose. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283–84 (1977).
121.

Defendant Trump’s retaliatory actions violate the First Amendment because they

are content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and cast a chill on reasonable persons of
ordinary firmness intended to deter them from engaging in speech critical of the President.
122.

Defendant Trump’s retaliatory actions toward news organizations and journalists

are subject to strict scrutiny. No legitimate compelling government interest justifies Defendant’s

31

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 32 of 36

retaliatory actions and they are not the least restrictive means of achieving any legitimate
governmental objective.
123.

Plaintiff’s members work for or with the news organizations that Defendant has

subjected to retaliatory acts. As a result of Defendant’s unconstitutional actions, Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s members have suffered and continue to suffer harm caused by the President’s
deliberate efforts to chill protected speech, which warrants immediate relief.
SECOND CLAIM
Violation of the First Amendment—Retaliatory Threats
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)
124.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.
125.

Any public official “who tries to shut down an avenue of expression of ideas and

opinions through ‘actual or threatened imposition of government power or sanction’ is violating
the First Amendment.” Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229, 230 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Am. Family Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 114, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 64–72 (1963).
126.

Restrictions on the press that are accomplished by threat of official retaliation are

considered to be informal prior restraints. Informal prior restraints are far more destructive of
constitutional rights than formal procedures because they are entirely beyond the rule of law,
affording no substantive or procedural protections whatsoever. The Supreme Court has
explained that when censorship is achieved by intimidating threats of governmental action.
“[t]here is no provision whatever for judicial superintendence before notices issue or even for
judicial review,” and censorship turns on officials’ discretionary “determinations of
objectionableness” with “no safeguards whatever against the suppression of . . . constitutionally
protected[] matter.” Bantam Books, Inc., 372 U.S. at 70–71.

32

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 33 of 36

127.

Informal censorship undermines essentially all substantive First Amendment

protections, including the government’s obligation to prove its actions burdening speech serve a
compelling interest using the least restrictive means possible, United States v. Playboy Entm’t
Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000), and the requirement that speech restrictions be narrowlytailored and precisely defined, see, e.g., Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 874–79
(1997). Similarly, it is antithetical to First Amendment doctrine for a government official to
abuse his discretion and target or seek to eliminate particular speech based on his distaste for the
speech. See City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 770 (1988).
128.

Defendant’s constant, credible threats to use the powers of his office to punish

disfavored news organizations and his penchant for singling out individual reporters for abuse
has had a chilling effect on the press. The fact that the Defendant has been willing to act on such
threats magnifies their censorial impact.
129.

Defendant Trump does not intend his threats to invoke government regulatory

powers against journalists and media entities to be empty, hollow threats. Defendant Trump
expects the officers implementing policy in his Administration to carry out his will.
130.

As a result of Defendant’s unconstitutional threats, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s

members have suffered and continue to suffer harm caused by the President’s deliberate efforts
to chill protected speech, which warrants immediate relief.
THIRD CLAIM
Violation of the First Amendment—Right to Receive Information
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)
131.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth

132.

The First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas. It

herein.

prohibits the government from arbitrarily or vindictively limiting the stock of information from
33

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 34 of 36

which members of the public may draw. The public, including Plaintiff PEN America’s
members and PEN America as an organization, has a right to receive information from press and
media organizations free from undue government interference.
133.

Defendant Trump unlawfully violated the First Amendment by using and

threatening to use the power and machinery of the federal government to punish and intimidate
various news organizations, including the Washington Post and Amazon, CNN and Time
Warner, NBC, the White House press corps, and other entities, publishers, writers, and
commentators who cover the President and his Administration.
134.

Defendant Trump’s credible threats and retaliatory actions violate Plaintiff’s and

Plaintiff’s members’ First Amendment rights. Those unlawful actions are content- and
viewpoint-based restrictions on speech intended to unduly affect the content and tenor of the
news and to orchestrate public discussion. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s members rely on each of the
sources threatened or punished by the President to receive information. The President’s
unconstitutional actions violate the right of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s members to receive
information from those sources free from undue government influence.
135.

Defendant Trump’s retaliatory actions toward news organizations and journalists

are subject to strict scrutiny. No legitimate compelling government interest justifies Defendant’s
retaliatory actions and they are not the least restrictive means of achieving any legitimate
governmental objective.
136.

As a result of Defendant’s unconstitutional actions, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s

members have suffered and continue to suffer harm, which warrants immediate relief.

34

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 35 of 36

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Plaintiff requests that this Court:
1.

Enter judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) declaring that Defendant Donald

J. Trump violated the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when he used
Presidential powers or the power of the federal government to retaliate against or otherwise
constrain speech critical of him or his Administration.
2.

Enjoin Defendant Donald J. Trump from directing or ordering any officer,

employee, agency, or other agent or instrumentality of the United States government to take any
official action against any person or entity for the purpose of retaliating against, intimidating, or
otherwise constraining speech critical of him or his Administration.
3.

Award Plaintiff its costs, including attorneys’ fees, and enter such other and

further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: February 6, 2019

Respectfully submitted,
THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.,
MEDIA FREEDOM & INFORMATION ACCESS
CLINIC, AND DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
By: /s/ Kristy Parker___________________
Kristy Parker (pro hac vice)
THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue., NW, #163
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 849-9307
Facsimile: (929) 777-8428
kristy.parker@protectdemocracy.org

Robert Corn-Revere (RC-0359)
Ronald G. London (RL-8734)
Chelsea T. Kelly
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-4200
BobCornRevere@dwt.com
RonnieLondon@dwt.com
ChelseaKelly@dwt.com

35

 Case 1:18-cv-09433-LGS Document 38 Filed 02/06/19 Page 36 of 36

Ian Bassin (IB-2417)
THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.
222 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (202) 599-0466
ian.bassin@protectdemocracy.org

David A. Schulz (DS-3180)
MEDIA FREEDOM AND INFORMATION
ACCESS CLINIC
FLOYD ABRAMS INSTITUTE
FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Yale Law School1
1675 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10019-5820
Tel: (212) 850-6103
Fax: (212) 223-1942
david.schulz@yale.edu

Laurence M. Schwartztol (LS-1978)
Justin Florence (pro hac vice pending)
THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.
10 Ware Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Telephone: (202) 599-0466
larry.schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org
justin.florence@protectdemocracy.org

John Langford (JL-2367)
Francesca Procaccini
Catherine Martinez, law student intern
George Wang, law student intern
Wendy Serra, law student intern
MEDIA FREEDOM AND INFORMATION
ACCESS CLINIC
FLOYD ABRAMS INSTITUTE
FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Yale Law School
P.O. Box 208215
New Haven, CT 06520
Telephone: (203) 436-5831
Facsimile: (203) 432-3034
john.langford@yale.edu

Steven A. Hirsch (SH-8188), consultant with
THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.
(SH-8188)
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: (415) 676-2286
sahirsch2@gmail.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

1 This amended complaint has been prepared in part by a clinic associated with the Abrams Institute for Freedom of
Expression and the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, but does not purport to present the school’s
institutional views, if any.

36