Judge Protects White House Access for News Outlets

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has issued a preliminary injunction preventing the White House from enforcing President Donald Trump’s ban on MS NOW, CNN and Politico while their lawsuit proceeds. The order by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly indefinitely extends protections previously granted through a temporary restraining order, preserving the outlets’ restored access during the case. It does not decide the lawsuit’s ultimate merits or require the White House to provide access to the Oval Office or Air Force One. Kelly found the outlets likely to succeed on claims that the administration denied them due process and retaliated against them, and discriminated against them based on viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment. He cited appeals court decisions recognizing due-process protections for journalists whose White House passes are revoked. The judge pointed to Trump’s public statements as evidence that he intended to punish the outlets for their reporting and influence how they covered him. The Justice Department argued that Trump acted partly over inaccurate reporting and national security concerns. Kelly said the record did not show national security was the reason for the decision when it was made, and described that rationale as appearing to be a post-lawsuit justification. He also clarified that his ruling did not invalidate legitimate concerns about reporting accuracy or the government’s ability to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed. He found that, without the injunction, the outlets were likely to suffer irreparable harm. Trump announced the ban on Sept. 18, saying the outlets reported “FICTION and LIES”; it took effect the following day, and journalists’ permanent White House passes were confiscated. The outlets sued on Sept. 21. Kelly issued a temporary restraining order two days later, allowing journalists to return on Sept. 24, and subsequently extended that order before issuing the preliminary injunction. An attorney for the outlets welcomed the ruling and called the ban an unconstitutional effort to punish disfavored reporting. Trump had said he would appeal a ruling blocking the ban; CNBC requested comment from the White House and Justice Department.

A US federal judge has extended an order restoring White House reporting access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico while their lawsuit against the Trump administration proceeds. The outlets sued after the administration barred them from entering the White House, arguing that the decision violated constitutional protections for free speech and due process. District Judge Timothy Kelly had temporarily restored their access in September; that order was due to expire Tuesday. He has now issued a preliminary injunction that keeps the protections in place for the duration of the case. Kelly wrote that President Donald Trump likely acted unlawfully in seeking to ban the outlets. He said the original ban could deter a reasonable journalist or news organization from publishing stories the president objects to, and concluded the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their due-process and First Amendment claims. The First Amendment protects, among other things, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Kelly cited a federal appeals court precedent requiring the White House to follow proper procedures before revoking press credentials. The judge also qualified his ruling: it should not be read as a finding that Trump’s criticisms of the outlets’ accuracy and fairness are unfounded. Kelly wrote that Trump likely barred them because he believes their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him. The administration, meanwhile, has argued that journalists have no right to report from the White House and that access is a privilege the president may grant or withdraw. The ruling preserves the outlets’ access as the legal case continues.

A US federal judge has extended White House access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico while their lawsuit against the Trump administration proceeds. In a written ruling on October 13, Judge Timothy Kelly kept a preliminary injunction in place, following an emergency order on September 24 that restored the journalists’ access. The injunction remains effective until a final judgment, unless an appeals court intervenes. Kelly concluded that President Donald Trump’s public comments indicated he barred the outlets because he considered their reporting biased and inaccurate, rather than for the national security reasons later offered by government lawyers. He described the stated basis as “unlawful viewpoint discrimination,” while clarifying that the decision did not mean Trump’s complaints about the outlets were necessarily meritless. The news organisations and press freedom groups say the withdrawal of the journalists’ White House passes was retaliation for their coverage. Their lawsuit alleges violations of First Amendment protections for speech and a free press, as well as due process rights. The administration has defended the ban on national security grounds. The White House restored access after Kelly’s September order found the ban likely violated constitutional due process rights. At an October 8 hearing, an attorney for the outlets argued that Trump wanted to chill speech and pressure journalists into providing more favorable coverage. A Justice Department lawyer, in turn, described the outlets’ conduct as indefensible. The dispute forms part of a broader conflict between Trump and news organisations: the article notes his attacks on journalists, restrictions on access, preference for more sympathetic outlets and lawsuits against media companies. The ruling comes weeks before the November 3 US midterm elections, as Republicans seek to retain control of Congress. The article also reports that Trump’s approval ratings were at record lows in polls amid concerns including inflation and the Iran war.