I don’t know enough Constitutional law in theory or in practice to know exactly what the best response to this is, but I feel pretty hesitant about just letting the “new rules” and attendant/implicit threats by the White House stand unopposed. I don’t know if this is the kind of thing the WHCA could seek a preliminary injunction on, but if possible I think they really need to push hard on this. It seems to me the one big win from a standpoint of legal precedent is that this case establishes (reinforces) the rule that the courts can intervene in this type of situation. Just taking that win and sitting quietly seems to me to just invite a massive chilling effect. My non-expert thoughts on this are it makes sense for the media to push just as hard as they can, forcing more litigation, seeking injunctions, etc, with two goals in mind: 1)the substantive goal of protecting first amendment access and opposing the petty tyranny of the Donald, plus 2)the legal/tactical goal of keeping the courts involvement in these issues active, and also serving as a “shot across the bow” of further efforts at Trump’s Mini-Me style of dictatorship.
I fear that despite the solid Constitutional win, allowing the Donald to get away with the ridiculous intimidation tactics implicit in this “new rules we can revoke your pass ANY TIME” BS would result in a death by a thousand cuts to press access.
I defer to folks with more knowledge of Con Law, First Amendment litigation, etc., but those are my thoughts.