In February, President Donald Trump's White House significantly limited the Associated Press's accessibility to events with the president amid an ongoing dispute about Trump's renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

The AP sued on First Amendment grounds and, on Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that the White House can't discriminate against the media outlet based on its viewpoints and must treat it the same as all other media outlets, Breitbart reported.

While the ruling is certainly a victory for the AP on paper, it will likely have little actual impact, as the judge acknowledged that the White House could continue to exclude the AP, or any other media outlet, from certain events for many acceptable reasons.

AP no longer gets "unfettered access" to White House events

On President Trump's first day in office, he issued an executive order that, among other things, renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America -- a move the AP disagreed with and has refused to abide by, particularly with its highly influential Stylebook.

The Trump White House did not appreciate the AP's open defiance of the lawful nomenclature change and, after a few weeks, announced that AP journalists and photographers would no longer have the automatic access they once enjoyed to White House-related events.

As explained in a Feb. 14 X post from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budwich, "The Associated Press continues to ignore the lawful geographic name change of the Gulf of America. This decision is not just divisive, but it also exposes the Associated Press' commitment to misinformation."

"While their right to irresponsible and dishonest reporting is protected by the First Amendment, it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces, like the Oval Office and Air Force One," he added. "Going forward, that space will now be opened up to the many thousands of reporters who have been barred from covering these intimate areas of the administration. Associated Press journalists and photographers will retain their credentials to the White House complex."

Injunction granted, with some exceptions

As noted, the AP filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against the White House and claimed that it was being discriminated against for its viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment, an argument with which U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, agreed.

In a 41-page ruling released on Tuesday, McFadden wrote of the injunction request, "Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events."

"It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces," he continued. "It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones’ questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views."

"No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists -- be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere -- it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less," McFadden added.

No "special treatment" for the AP, but also can't be treated worse than others

At the conclusion of his order, Judge McFadden more thoroughly clarified the admittedly limited extent of his ruling, in that, "The AP seeks restored eligibility for admission to the press pool and limited-access press events, untainted by an impermissible viewpoint-based exclusion. That is all the Court orders today: For the Government to put the AP on an equal playing field as similarly situated outlets, despite the AP’s use of disfavored terminology."

"The Court does not order the Government to grant the AP permanent access to the Oval Office, the East Room, or any other media event. It does not bestow special treatment upon the AP. Indeed, the AP is not necessarily entitled to the 'first in line every time' permanent press pool access it enjoyed under the WHCA," he added. "But it cannot be treated worse than its peer wire services either. The Court merely declares that the AP’s exclusion has been contrary to the First Amendment, and it enjoins the Government from continuing down that unlawful path."

In response to that ruling, AP spokeswoman Lauren Easton said, "We are gratified by the court’s decision. Today’s ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution."