Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to temporarily restore White House press access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico, finding that the three news organizations were likely to succeed in showing that their credentials were revoked without constitutionally required due process.
U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly granted the outlets a 14-day temporary restraining order, directing the White House to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” their press credentials.
The ruling is the latest development in an escalating legal fight over the Trump administration’s decision to bar the three outlets from covering the White House. CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued Monday, arguing that the ban violated their First Amendment rights and deprived their journalists of due process.
Kelly, a Trump appointee, wrote that the outlets were likely to prevail on their due process claim because the administration revoked their permanent press credentials without providing adequate notice or an opportunity to respond.
But the judge also questioned whether the administration’s stated national security rationale actually motivated the ban.
Judge questions administration’s rationale
Trump announced the ban Friday, saying the three outlets had engaged in what he called “FAKE NEWS” and “fiction and lies.” He said the decision reflected what he described as two years of unfair and negative coverage.
The administration later offered a different justification in court.
In a filing Wednesday, the Justice Department argued that the outlets had violated standards expected of organizations with White House access and accused them of publishing sensitive or classified information. The DOJ also invoked national security concerns, arguing that access to the White House is a “privilege—not a right.”
Kelly appeared skeptical of that explanation.
The judge wrote that the court was “skeptical” that protecting national security was the administration’s actual motivation for revoking the outlets’ credentials or that the ban advanced national security.
He noted that Trump initially cited the outlets’ reporting and alleged lack of truthfulness when announcing the ban, rather than national security.
The administration’s letters to the outlets later cited stories involving construction of a purportedly sensitive bunker beneath the White House ballroom, Iran negotiations, munitions stockpiles and other national security matters.
But Kelly said the government had provided no evidence showing how the reporting it cited had actually damaged national security.
He also noted that some of the journalists who reported the stories identified by the administration did not hold the permanent White House credentials that were revoked.
Court says rules were too vague
Kelly also questioned whether the White House had established clear standards that would allow journalists to understand what conduct could result in the loss of their credentials.
The judge described the administration’s standard for revoking access as “so vague it hardly does the trick.”
He also rejected the administration’s suggestion that national security required an immediate ban, noting that some of the stories cited in the White House’s letters were months or even years old.
“Nothing in the record suggests the need for such urgency here,” Kelly wrote.
The ruling does not resolve the underlying First Amendment claims. It temporarily restores access while the broader lawsuit proceeds.
Media outlets challenge White House ban
During Wednesday’s emergency hearing, Theodore J. Boutrous, an attorney for CNN, MS NOW and Politico, argued that the ban amounted to retaliation for unfavorable coverage and violated the outlets’ First Amendment protections.
He described the case as an unusually clear example of government retaliation based on the viewpoint of news organizations.
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik defended the administration’s position that White House access is discretionary and argued that the president must have authority to restrict access when national security is at issue.
The outlets have argued that the administration cannot use access to government facilities as leverage to punish news organizations for their reporting.
The dispute has already disrupted the White House television press pool. CNN had been scheduled to provide pool coverage Monday, but its removal prompted the other major television networks to suspend presidential pool coverage rather than replace CNN.
Ruling does not end the standoff
Kelly’s order requires the administration to restore the outlets’ credentials, but the confrontation did not immediately end.
Hours after the ruling, CNN and Politico reporters said they were still denied entry to the White House compound, according to The Associated Press.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.
The case now moves forward with the temporary restraining order in place. The underlying dispute will determine whether the administration can permanently exclude the three organizations and what constitutional limits apply when a president restricts press access because of the content of journalists’ reporting.
