Nobody with even a vestige of a brain would argue that there are no conditions under which a person can be denied access to the news conference.
The question in this case is how egregious the misbehavior must be to justify it. What's troubling is the question of who should make that decision. I hate to see the courts doing it, and I suspect the courts don't like that kind of micromanagement, either.
In the case of Acosta, the primary responsibility should be his employer. Barring that, it probably would make sense for the organization of WH correspondents to be involved. Tell him to start acting like a grownup or lose its support. If those two entities fail to act, the WH has the responsibility to keep the conferences in order.
That's where the ultimate decision rests, of course. If the courts say the WH can't decide who to accredit, the WH can simply exercise the nuclear option and refuse to schedule news conferences. Or the president could simply refuse to recognize the individual in question. I can't believe any court would order a president to talk to any individual.
The best result, of course, would be for the country not to elect an asshole and if it does, for CNN to stop sending an asshole to cover him.
