Sherrill v. Knight: the 1977 ruling on White House press passes
Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Cir. 1977) held that a White House press pass may not be denied arbitrarily and requires notice, a reply and written reasons.
Sherrill v. Knight is a 1977 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit holding that once the White House opens press facilities to journalists, a White House press pass may not be denied "arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons" (opinion, 569 F.2d 124). The court required "notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial," and courts in Washington have applied that rule to press pass disputes since (case record).
What was Sherrill v. Knight about?
Robert Sherrill had been Washington correspondent for The Nation, a weekly magazine, since 1965, and held credentials for the House and Senate press galleries of the United States Congress, the national legislature (opinion). In 1966 he applied for a White House press pass and was refused (case record). The White House is the office and residence of the president of the United States in Washington, D.C.
The refusal came from the Secret Service, the federal agency that protects the president. The opinion states that "the denial resulted solely from the determination of the Secret Service, after investigating Mr. Sherrill, that he not be issued the pass" (opinion). A Secret Service memorandum to Bill Moyers, then White House press secretary, dated May 3, 1966, asked that the background information behind the decision "not be disclosed to Mr. Sherrill or his employer" (opinion). H. Stuart Knight, the named defendant, was director of the United States Secret Service when the case reached the appeals court (opinion).
How White House press passes were issued in the 1970s
The court found that "there exist no written procedures pertaining to the issuance of press passes for the White House" (opinion). A journalist applied to the White House Press Office, which checked that the applicant held House and Senate press gallery passes, lived in the Washington area and needed to report from the White House regularly. The press office forwards the application "to the Secret Service for a security check, including a background FBI investigation," and "whether a pass is then issued depends solely on the recommendation of the Secret Service" (opinion).
Applicants who were refused were told, orally or in writing, that the denial was "for reasons relating to the security of the President and/or the members of his immediate family." When Sherrill asked why he had been refused, "Secret Service personnel replied that 'we can't tell you the reasons'" (opinion). He reapplied for a press credential in January 1972 and was refused again (opinion).
How Sherrill learned the reason
Also in January 1972, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a United States civil liberties organization, requested Press Secretary Ziegler (Ronald Ziegler) to state in writing whether Sherrill had been denied a pass and why (opinion). Sherrill had never received written notice thereof. A letter signed on February 11, 1972, stated that he had been denied accreditation "for reasons of security" on May 3, 1966 (opinion).
The ACLU then filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the 1966 United States law that gives the public a right to request federal records. The Secret Service advised that the material was exempt. On June 26, 1972, Eugene Rossides, an assistant secretary of the Treasury, denied the appeal but wrote: "For Mr. Sherrill's information, he has been arrested and fined for physical assault in the State of Florida" (opinion). The court called this "the first and only indication Mr. Sherrill received of the reason he was considered a security risk." A footnote records that the Secret Service decision also rested on "a 1962 assault charge in Texas" and on an allegation that Sherrill was "mentally unbalanced" (opinion).
A second journalist, Thomas Forcade, denied a White House press pass in 1971, joined the suit and later withdrew (opinion).
What did the district court decide?
Sherrill sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the federal trial court in Washington, D.C., alleging that the denial under the foregoing circumstances violated the first and fifth amendments to the Constitution (opinion). The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and of the press, and the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process, fair procedure before the government takes away a person's liberty or property.
In Forcade v. Knight, 416 F.Supp. 1025 (D.D.C. 1976), the district court did not order a pass issued. It told the Secret Service to "devise and publicize narrow and specific standards" for press pass denials, to give applicants notice of the evidence, to let them rebut it, and to issue a final written decision (opinion). The district court based the written-decision requirement on its view that denying a pass to a bona fide journalist violates the First Amendment unless it furthers a compelling governmental interest identified by narrowly drawn standards; without a written decision, it said, it could not undertake proper judicial review. On notice and rebuttal, the court relied on a finding that a denial deprives a journalist of "liberty" under the Fifth Amendment. The government appealed.
What did the D.C. Circuit hold?
The D.C. Circuit, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard argument on September 23, 1977, and decided the case on December 15, 1977. Judges Carl McGowan, Harold Leventhal and Roger Robb sat on the panel, and McGowan wrote the opinion (opinion).
The government argued that because the public has no First Amendment right of access to the White House, and the press has no greater right than the public, a denial violates the First Amendment only if it is based on the content of the journalist's speech (opinion). The court agreed that "arbitrary or content-based criteria for press pass issuance are prohibited under the first amendment," but found further First Amendment interests at stake.
The court wrote that "the White House has voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom." With White House press facilities open to the press, the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee "requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons" (opinion). It added that "the public at large" also has an interest "in assuring that restrictions on newsgathering be no more arduous than necessary, and that individual newsmen not be arbitrarily excluded from sources of information."
The standard: physical danger to the president
The court accepted that protecting the president is a compelling governmental interest, and that Sherrill's denial "proceeded solely from concern for 'the physical security of the President'" (opinion). It called the phrase "reasons of security" "unnecessarily vague and subject to ambiguous interpretation" and required the Secret Service to "publish or otherwise make publicly known the actual standard." It did not require the narrow and specific standards the district court had ordered. It was enough, the court held, that the Secret Service be guided "solely by the principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of physical danger to the President and/or his immediate family so serious as to justify his exclusion" (opinion). That standard, it said, allowed meaningful judicial review, and reviewing courts would be "appropriately deferential" to the Secret Service.
The procedure: notice, reply, written reasons
The court held that "notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial are compelled" because a bona fide Washington correspondent's interest in a pass is protected by the First Amendment, and that interest "undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment" (opinion). The final written statement, it said, would show that the agency had not relied on "additional, undisclosed information" and would prevent a repeat of Sherrill's case, where official written notification came "more than five years after the status decision is made." The court affirmed the procedural part of the judgment and sent the standards part back to be modified to fit the First Amendment analysis (case record). The site's glossary summarizes the result as the Sherrill v. Knight standard.
What Sherrill v. Knight did not decide
The court said the case did not concern the general public's entry to the White House, and did not challenge "the discretion of the President to grant interviews or briefings with selected journalists" (opinion). Sherrill's First Amendment claim was not that "the White House must open its doors to the press, conduct press conferences, or operate press facilities." In a footnote, the court said it had no occasion to consider "what procedures must be employed in the revocation, for security reasons, of an already-issued White House press pass" (opinion).
How have courts used Sherrill v. Knight since 1977?
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), a United States non-profit that gives legal help to journalists, filed a brief in Sherrill v. Knight with the White House Correspondents' Association, the organization of reporters who cover the president, and the National Press Club (RCFP).
On November 7, 2018, the White House suspended the hard pass, the standing credential for White House entry, of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after a news conference with President Donald Trump (record). On November 16, 2018, Judge Timothy J. Kelly granted CNN a temporary restraining order "on due process grounds drawn from Sherrill v. Knight," and the White House restored the pass on November 19 (case record; Yahoo News / AP).
In June 2020, in Brian Karem's case, a D.C. Circuit panel held that the White House could not suspend a Playboy correspondent's pass on "unarticulated standards of professionalism." Judge David S. Tatel wrote: "Forty years on, today's hard-pass system is little changed from the one described in Sherrill" (RCFP).
In 2025, the Associated Press (AP) case turned on a different question: access to the Oval Office, the president's office, and other small spaces. On June 6, 2025, a D.C. Circuit panel allowed the White House, 2 to 1, to keep the AP out of those spaces; Judge Neomi Rao wrote that "these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion" (CNN; case record).
The record lists Sherrill v. Knight as precedent for the September 2026 deactivation of hard passes held by CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters, which the three outlets challenged in Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03287, pending as of September 22, 2026 (record; case record).
Sherrill v. Knight timeline, 1965 to 2026
| Date | Event | |---|---| | 1965 | Sherrill becomes Washington correspondent for The Nation | | 1966-05-03 | Secret Service tells the press secretary Sherrill will not be issued a pass | | 1972-01 | Sherrill reapplies and is refused; ACLU asks for reasons | | 1972-06-26 | Treasury letter cites a Florida arrest and fine | | 1976 | District court orders standards and procedures (Forcade v. Knight) | | 1977-12-15 | D.C. Circuit affirms procedures, modifies standards (case) | | 2018-11-16 | Acosta order relies on Sherrill (case) | | 2020-06 | Karem ruling cites Sherrill (RCFP) | | 2026-09-21 | CNN, MS NOW and Politico sue (case) |
Sources for the table: the opinion (1965 to 1977) and the linked record pages.
Do other countries review refusals of press credentials?
The record files refusals of press credentials under credential control. In Türkiye, the Council of State, the highest administrative court, suspended rules that let the presidency deny or cancel press cards, finding the grounds too broad (record).
Sources
- Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1977), Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School)
- Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1977) archived copy
- Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Cir.)
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2020-06-11
- White House restores Jim Acosta's press pass, CNN drops lawsuit
- CNN, 2025-06-06