WH ignores 1st Amendment of Constitution

I don't think it's quite that simple.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1502&context=crsj&ved=2ahUKEwiR2bL-hsSLAxW8K1kFHbCGFX8QFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0scKfM1sI3jEgf6Rm985wF

“Opening the Door” to Presidential Press Conferences: A Framework for the Right of Press Access

***

Once the President and the Administration have “opened the door” to press access generally, they must provide the press equal access.They can neither exclude a reporter arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons,nor exclude based on the viewpoint of that reporter or of the affiliated media outlet.

In order to determine whether the Administration has “opened the door” of the forum to press access, both the Richmond Newspapers’ two-part “logic and experience” test and Cuomo’s equal access test191 provide guidance. Where there is a history of press access, access should generally not be
denied. This general rule, however, does not preclude the President from granting an individual interview with a specific reporter without being required to grant individual interviews with other reporters.

Once a court has determined the Administration has “opened the door” to the press generally, it should then inquire whether the government has denied particular reporters access arbitrarily, for less than compelling reasons, or based on the viewpoint of that reporter or of the affiliated media outlet. The court is to engage in careful judicial scrutiny in considering the press access issue.194 Such careful judicial scrutiny requires the Administration to put forth compelling reasons for restricting members of the press that do not include discriminatory or arbitrary exclusions or pretextual rationales.Further, even when an Administration invokes a concern related to the special nature of the presidency and the White House, like “confidentiality, security, orderly process, [or] spatial limitation,” as the reason for restricting press access, the court should still ask whether the restriction serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to serve the Administration’s interest. Thus, the court should be able to inquire into an Administration’s motive to determine if the Administration has a legitimate purpose for restricting the press’s access.