.png)
How the High Times Founder’s “Pie Power” Protest Helped Defeat Trump’s White House Press Ban
Sometimes history turns on a landmark speech. Sometimes it turns on a court decision. And sometimes it starts with a pie to the face.
More than five decades before a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore White House access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico, cannabis activist and future High Times founder Tom Forçade was fighting his own battle for press freedom.
That battle helped produce one of the most important federal precedents governing White House press credentials: Sherrill v. Knight.
The connection is more than an entertaining piece of cannabis history. It is a reminder that the fight for cannabis reform has always overlapped with larger struggles over civil liberties, government accountability and the right to challenge people in power.
A Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s White House Press Ban
In September 2026, President Donald Trump barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House grounds after accusing the news organizations of publishing “fake news.” Reporters had their credentials deactivated, and the outlets responded with a federal lawsuit alleging violations of the First Amendment and their right to due process.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the administration to restore the outlets’ press credentials while the dispute continued. The ruling focused heavily on procedure: the government could not revoke established access without adequate notice, a meaningful explanation and an opportunity for the affected journalists to respond.
Those requirements trace back to Sherrill v. Knight, a 1977 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. But the case began in the trial court under another name: Forcade v. Knight.
That Forcade was Tom Forçade—the counterculture journalist who would create High Times.
Who Was Tom Forçade?
Before launching High Times in 1974, Forçade helped run the Underground Press Syndicate, later known as the Alternative Press Syndicate. The organization connected hundreds of counterculture publications and gave independent journalists a way to share stories routinely ignored by mainstream media.
Forçade covered politics and held credentials for the House and Senate press galleries. He also had a reputation for confrontational activism.
On May 13, 1970, Forçade appeared before the U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornography during a public hearing in Washington, D.C. After delivering a blistering statement attacking the commission, he pressed a pie into the face of commissioner Otto N. Larsen and distributed flyers declaring “pie power.”
The stunt made national news. It also followed him.
When Forçade later sought a White House press pass, the Secret Service rejected his application for vaguely stated “security” reasons. A government official pointed him toward a newspaper report about the pie incident but did not provide a clear standard, a complete explanation or a meaningful way to challenge the denial.
Forcade v. Knight Put Secret Press-Pass Decisions on Trial
Forçade joined journalist Robert Sherrill of The Nation in suing federal officials over the denial of their White House credentials. Both journalists argued that the government had restricted their ability to gather news without transparent rules or fair procedures.
In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Forcade v. Knight that the government’s system violated constitutional protections. The court found that officials had failed to use public, meaningful standards and had not told the journalists enough about the reasons for denial to let them rebut the allegations.
The court emphasized that more than the careers of two reporters was at stake. Excluding differing viewpoints from White House access could deprive the public of the vigorous debate protected by the First Amendment.
Forçade later withdrew from the appeal, leaving Sherrill as the named plaintiff. That is why the appellate decision became known as Sherrill v. Knight.
What Sherrill v. Knight Established
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the core procedural protections in 1977. The court held that when the White House makes press facilities generally available to bona fide journalists, it cannot deny a qualifying reporter access arbitrarily.
When officials deny a press pass, the journalist must receive:
Notice of the factual basis for the denial;
An opportunity to respond or rebut the government’s claims; and
A written decision explaining the final reasons.
The ruling did not say that every reporter has an unlimited constitutional right to enter every presidential space. It recognized legitimate security concerns and allowed the Secret Service meaningful discretion. But it also made clear that “security” could not function as a magic word permitting secret, unreviewable or discriminatory decisions.
That distinction remains crucial. The government may establish neutral access and security rules. It may not use credentialing as a weapon to punish journalists for coverage officials dislike.
How the Case Reached Trump’s 2026 Press Fight
The legal lineage from Forçade’s lawsuit to the current controversy is direct.
Federal courts relied on Sherrill v. Knight during Trump’s first administration when the White House suspended CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s credential. Judge Kelly—who also handled the 2026 dispute—ordered Acosta’s pass temporarily restored in 2018 after concluding that the government likely failed to provide adequate due process.
In 2026, CNN, MS NOW and Politico faced a similar problem on a larger scale. Their credentials were revoked after Trump publicly criticized their reporting, reportedly without advance notice or an opportunity to contest the decision.
The government argued that White House access is a privilege. But decades of case law draw an important line: even when access is limited, the government cannot administer it in an arbitrary way or retaliate against protected viewpoints.
Forçade did not remain part of the case through its final appeal, but his fight helped build the foundation upon which that principle stands.
Why This Matters to the Cannabis Movement
Cannabis journalism has rarely been treated like ordinary journalism.
For decades, reporters and publishers who questioned prohibition were dismissed as unserious, radical or dangerous. Cannabis publications documented arrests, medical discoveries, political organizing and the human cost of the drug war while many traditional outlets repeated government narratives with little scrutiny.
Forçade understood that access to information is power. If officials can decide that an unconventional publisher is not a “real” journalist—or remove access simply because coverage is hostile—they can control which questions get asked and which stories reach the public.
The same principle applies to cannabis policy today. Florida patients, consumers and voters need independent reporting on medical marijuana regulations, arrests, licensing, hemp restrictions and legalization campaigns. Government agencies should not be able to reward friendly coverage while shutting out critics.
Press freedom is not only about protecting large national networks. It protects local reporters, nonprofit newsrooms, advocacy publications, independent creators and cannabis media too.
A Pie, a Lawsuit and a Lasting First Amendment Legacy
Tom Forçade’s protest was theatrical, messy and unmistakably countercultural. But the lawsuit that followed raised a serious constitutional question: Can the government deny a journalist access under vague rules, refuse to explain itself and offer no meaningful chance to respond?
The courts said no.
More than 50 years later, that answer still matters. The precedent tied to a future cannabis publisher and an infamous pie helped protect national news organizations from a presidential ban.
That is the deeper lesson for the cannabis movement. Activists and alternative journalists are often treated as outsiders in their own time. Yet the rights they fight to establish can eventually protect everyone.
Frequently Asked Questions
What case was used to challenge Trump’s White House press ban?
The key precedent was Sherrill v. Knight, a 1977 D.C. Circuit decision requiring notice, an opportunity to respond and a written explanation when an otherwise eligible journalist is denied a White House press credential.
What did Tom Forçade have to do with Sherrill v. Knight?
Forçade was a co-plaintiff in the original district-court case, Forcade v. Knight. He withdrew during the appeal, so the appellate ruling carried Robert Sherrill’s name.
Why was Tom Forçade denied a White House press pass?
The Secret Service cited security concerns. Government correspondence pointed toward Forçade’s 1970 protest in which he pushed a pie into the face of a federal commissioner, but officials initially provided no clear standards or adequate procedure for challenging the denial.
Did the court create an unlimited right to White House access?
No. The decision allowed the government to impose legitimate security restrictions. It required, however, that credential decisions follow a meaningful standard and basic procedural protections rather than arbitrary or viewpoint-based treatment.
Why is this story relevant to cannabis reform?
Forçade later founded High Times, one of the most influential cannabis publications in American history. His credential fight shows how cannabis and counterculture journalism contributed to broader protections for press freedom and government accountability.
Comments