You are correct that the existence of a lawsuit -- on First Amendment or Fifth Amendment grounds -- is not a strong basis for believing that Acosta will have his pass reinstated. People file losing lawsuits all the time.

The truth is that the Constitution does not promise much at all in terms of outcomes. What it does promise is that we'll go through reasonable procedures to arrive at those outcomes. And that's exactly what *Sherrill* was about. 

That case does not say that everyone has the First Amendment right to a White House press pass; it says that that because of the importance of First Amendment principles, everyone has the Fifth Amendment right to due process when the White House decides whether to grant or deny a press pass.

The basics ingredients of due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral decision-maker, and that's all that *Sherrill* calls for: a publicly disclosed procedure by which the journalists can apply for credentials and appeal adverse decisions. 

Here, it's unclear whether the White House has provided Acosta with any notice or any opportunity to appeal his decision. If that's the case, they've almost certainly run afoul of *Sherrill*. But again, you are correct that this does not mean he gets his press pass back. If they find that the White House violated the Fifth Amendment as explained in *Sherrill*, the remedy will simply be to force it to go through the prescribed procedure.

*But*, if it turns out that they use that procedure as a pretext to punish him for protected speech, we would be out of Fifth Amendment territory and into First Amendment territory. If a court found that the White House had revoked his pass because he was from CNN, because they didn't like the questions he was asking, or because he didn't provide fawning coverage of the president, the White House would in all likelihood be forced to restore his credentials.