A federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s ban of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, ordering access restored for 14 days and ruling that revoking press passes without due process likely violates the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the Trump administration to immediately return, reinstate, and restore the White House hard pass credentials held by employees of the three targeted media organizations. The temporary restraining order issued on Thursday halts a ban that President Donald Trump announced on September 18.
The legal showdown unfolded just weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, as Trump’s fellow Republicans fight to retain control of Congress amid record-low job approval ratings. Five television networks—ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC—take turns providing television coverage of live presidential events. When the White House blocked CNN from its scheduled TV pool duties for Monday, the pool announced it would not cover presidential events designated for pool coverage, while major newspapers declined to share presidential pool photos.
Judge Timothy Kelly Rules the Ban Unconstitutional
In his ruling, Kelly noted that the media houses were likely to succeed in arguing that their press passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process. The judge, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2017, rejected the government’s late-shifting defense that the ban was necessary to protect national security.
Simply put—the record lacks factual support for Defendants’ contention that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes will in fact protect national security or that national security will be endangered if the Court orders their passes reinstated while this litigation proceeds.
Judge Tim Kelly, U.S. District Court
Kelly pointed out that Trump did not mention national security when he first announced the ban on social media, focusing instead on what he termed reporting FICTION and LIES
. In a Truth Social post last week, Trump warned that other Fake News Media Outlets could follow, citing cumulative stories
and writing, You get sick of it.
Justice Department Arguments and White House Letters
Attorneys from the Justice Department argued during Wednesday’s emergency hearing that access to the White House is a privilege rather than an entitlement, giving the president the authority to restrict entry to sensitive areas like the Oval Office. Lawyers claimed the outlets failed to maintain basic minimum standards of professionalism and decorum by publishing sensitive or classified information and trafficking in verifiable falsehoods.
To support that position, the administration filed copies of letters sent to the three news organizations on Tuesday. However, Judge Kelly expressed skepticism toward the administration’s timeline, noting that the letters outlining reporting incidents were dispatched after the ban had already taken effect and after the lawsuit had been filed in federal court in Washington.
The judge also dismissed the administration’s standard of objectionable reporting as so vague it hardly does the trick
and declined a request from the Justice Department to delay the effective date of the temporary restraining order.
First Amendment Precedents and Legal Team Reactions
The lawsuit, filed on Monday by CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, named Trump, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, and Secret Service Director Sean Curran as defendants. Legal representatives for the news organizations argued that the ban violated First Amendment protections for free speech, free press, and newsgathering.
A coalition of press freedom organizations and major news companies—including Reuters, The Washington Post, and Fox News—filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs. The coalition asserted that stripping journalists and news outlets of their rights because of perceived editorial viewpoint violates decades of established Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the outlets, said the ruling was a victory for press freedoms and expressed appreciation for the court’s swift action.
Trump acknowledged publicly ahead of the ruling that the decision would likely go against his administration. In a social media post earlier in the week, he criticized Judge Kelly—who previously presided over a 2018 case ordering the White House to restore press access to then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta—calling him a great, for them, and totally disloyal Judge.
Worth a look
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.