Last week’s particularly hilarious exchange between President Donald Trump and Jim Acosta concluded with Acosta’s White House press credentials being suspended. Now, CNN is suing President Trump over the ban.

The exchange (particularly the end) didn’t make Acosta look good by any stretch of the imagination, hence why some Democrats and pundits claimed that the whole incident was a “setup” to make Acosta look bad. How could those orchestrating a “setup” possibly know that Acosta would refuse to give up his mic? Who knows – but CNN is standing by Acosta regardless, and suing the Trump administration.

According to CNN:

“CNN has filed a lawsuit against President Trump and several of his aides, seeking the immediate restoration of chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s access to the White House. The lawsuit is a response to the White House’s suspension of Acosta’s press pass, known as a Secret Service “hard pass,” last week. The suit alleges that Acosta and CNN’s First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the ban. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday morning. Both CNN and Acosta are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. There are six defendants: Trump, chief of staff John Kelly, press secretary Sarah Sanders, deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine, Secret Service director Randolph Alles, and the Secret Service officer who took Acosta’s hard pass away last Wednesday. The six defendants are all named because of their roles in enforcing and announcing Acosta’s suspension.”

CNN is seeking a preliminary injunction, which if granted, would allow Acosta access to the White House until the case is decided. If the case is decided in Acosta’s favor, the injunction would become permanent.

Does Acosta have a case against the Trump administration?

But is Trump violating Acosta’s First Amendment rights? Only if you believe that having a White House press pass is part of the First Amendment (hint: it’s not). And even if it were, Acosta’s credentials weren’t suspended because of anything he said, but because of the altercation he had with the intern. If Trump wanted to revoke Acosta’s credentials just for being annoying and unprofessional, he would’ve already done so very long ago.

As Denise McAllister explains, past Presidents have engaged in behavior that would be considered unconstitutional by CNN (but didn’t result in any legal consequences).

Acosta’s case is built on a false premise, though it’s hardly surprising he frames his situation as a “First Amendment” issue, rather than a “being aggressive with a female intern” issue.

About that injunction….

For a preliminary injunction to be granted, Acosta must prove that he’ll suffer “irreparable harm” unless the injunction is issued, according to Cornell Law. Unless a judge agrees that Acosta’s First Amendment rights were violated (which is unlikely from anyone except an activist judge) an injunction will not be granted.

A judge may also notice one lie in particular in CNN’s lawsuit that could convince him this lawsuit is partisan in nature. While the lawsuit claims Acosta asked Trump a question about the caravan, Acosta was attempting to “educate” the President about his opinion on the matter.

Absent an unlikely injunction, Acosta is out at the White House until this lawsuit is decided, and in all likelihood, he could be out for good. Much like Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti, two frequent guests on CNN, they too could wind up footing Trump’s legal bills following a failed lawsuit.