A federal judge issued a significant ruling on Tuesday, restraining the Trump administration from preventing CNN, Politico, and MS NOW from access to the White House complex. This injunction comes as the news organizations challenge the administration’s ban in court.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly of Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction following a hearing where the administration cited national security concerns as a justification for the ban. However, the media organizations argued that the move was driven by viewpoint discrimination against their reporting.
In his 26-page opinion, Judge Kelly observed that national security was not a legitimate basis for revoking the press passes of the reporters in question, indicating that this action likely infringed upon the First Amendment rights and due process of the journalists involved.
“There is practically nothing national security-related in the record connected to the President’s decision to revoke Plaintiffs’ hard passes to which the Court can defer,” Kelly stated. The ruling allows journalists from these outlets to regain access to the White House until the lawsuit is resolved, although it does not grant access to locations like the Oval Office or Air Force One, which the administration had previously restricted.
Prior to the ruling, Trump announced the ban on September 18, declaring on social media that it was a result of what he termed “FAKE NEWS” by these media outlets. Trump expressed that media organizations should not be allowed to perpetuate narratives he considers false while reporting on his administration.
In their lawsuit, CNN, Politico, and MS NOW detailed that the ban affected 78 journalists who had been properly vetted and issued hard passes for White House access. They contended that Trump’s action was an infringement of their constitutional rights, stating, “This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles.”
An important point of contention in court was whether the ban was truly related to national security. The judge appeared unconvinced by this argument, highlighting that Trump’s own comments indicated the motivation was rooted in his dissatisfaction with the coverage he received. Kelly noted, “President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him.”
Kelly’s ruling did not dismiss Trump’s concerns over media accuracy but emphasized that the method of enacting the ban was unconstitutional. The administration had previously contested the notion that it was violating established precedents from past court cases concerning press access.
During the hearing, a Justice Department lawyer representing the White House characterized access to the White House as a privilege, not a right, suggesting that the administration should not be compelled to grant access based solely on a journalist’s claim to be a member of the press.
Conversely, the attorney for the news organizations argued that the ban was a clear example of viewpoint discrimination stemming from Trump’s frustrations with critical reporting. The legal representative, Ted Boutrous, remarked that Trump “is not hiding” his motives for the ban.
Following the judge’s decision, Boutrous expressed gratitude for the restored access, reiterating that Trump’s actions were intended to penalize media outlets for reporting that the President found unfavorable. Boutrous stated, “The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The Court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban.’”
In a related development, the Justice Department also announced an investigation into major TV networks, including CNN and NBC, for possible violations of federal antitrust laws after these outlets briefly stopped providing pool coverage of Trump following the enforcement of the ban.
