A US federal judge has extended an order blocking President Donald Trump’s administration from banning journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.
US District Judge, Timothy Kelly issued a preliminary injunction that preserves the reporters’ access to the White House while the case proceeds.
Kelly rejected the administration’s argument that the restrictions were justified by policy objectives, including national security. Instead, he concluded that the available evidence indicated the bans were driven by Trump’s stated objections to the outlets’ reporting, which he had criticised as inaccurate and biased.
Kelly wrote, “Simply put, that is unlawful viewpoint discrimination,” referring to a principle that prohibits the government from penalising speech because it disagrees with the views expressed.
The judge, however, clarified that his decision did not establish that Trump’s concerns about media accuracy and fairness were necessarily unfounded.
“Still, no one should interpret the Court’s decision to suggest that President Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness in the media’s reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.”
US District Judge Timothy Kelly
The ruling followed an earlier temporary order requiring the White House to restore the affected reporters’ hard-pass press credentials while the court considered the case. With that order due to expire on Tuesday, Kelly issued the preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of the bans for the duration of the proceedings unless the court changes its decision.
He said that the news organisations were likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, adding that the balance of equities and the public interest favoured maintaining their access.
Judge Cites Free Speech and Due Process Concerns
Kelly, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump, said the administration had failed to provide adequate warning before the US President announced the restrictions in a social media post on September 18.
The judge wrote, “To put it mildly,” the White House had given the plaintiffs no warning that their hard-pass credentials were at risk before Trump’s announcement.
The judge also stressed that the consequences of the bans extended beyond the individual journalists affected. By restricting access to the White House press area, which remains open to reporters from competing outlets, the administration could prevent the three organisations from observing events firsthand, reporting promptly and engaging with government officials.
“The ban threatens to cut off all Plaintiffs’ access to the White House press area—a space open to many of their competitors—thereby restricting their ability to observe happenings there firsthand, immediately report on those activities, and try to engage with government officials.”
US District Judge Timothy Kelly
Hard-pass credentials provide journalists who regularly cover the White House with longer-term access to the campus without requiring them to obtain permission before each visit.
Kelly said that the restrictions affected a total of 78 reporters across CNN, MS NOW and Politico. The outlets jointly filed a lawsuit in Washington, DC, challenging the administration’s decision.
Trump had announced the bans in a September 18 social media post that criticised the organisations’ reporting as “fake news.” Kelly temporarily blocked the restrictions on September 24 after the news outlets sought court intervention.
The journalists’ legal representatives argued that the President could not punish reporters or media organisations simply because he disliked the content of their coverage. Attorneys for the outlets described the administration’s action as “unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional” under the First and Fifth Amendments.
They also warned that the restrictions could have implications beyond the three organisations, potentially discouraging independent reporting by other news outlets concerned about losing access to the White House. “The ban also inflicts an injury on all news media organizations — which now risk a similar fate if they engage in fact-based, independent reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote.
Government lawyers argued that access to the White House was a privilege rather than a constitutional right, maintaining that the President could impose restrictions to protect national security and curb the spread of misinformation.
The administration also asked Kelly to suspend his ruling while it pursued an appeal. The judge declined, concluding that the government had not provided sufficient justification for pausing the injunction.
His decision means the White House cannot enforce the challenged bans against the three news organisations while the preliminary injunction remains in effect and the legal dispute continues.
The case centres on the limits of presidential authority over access to the White House press area and whether restrictions targeting particular media organisations can be justified by concerns about their reporting.
The court’s ruling does not determine the entire case, but it allows the outlets to retain their access while their constitutional claims are considered. The case of the three news outlets is increasingly messy and expensive. After the five-outlet rotating pool stood by CNN and canceled its coverage of Trump, the Justice Department over the weekend announced it was investigating whether those five companies violated antitrust laws in doing so.
Outlets Welcome Ruling
Theodore Boutrous Jr., an Attorney representing the three media organisations, welcomed the decision, arguing that the administration’s action had harmed both the outlets and the broader public.
“When the President issued his ‘ban on the free press,’ he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment.
“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 on the free press’ for the foreseeable future.”
Theodore Boutrous Jr.,
The legal proceedings are expected to continue as the administration challenges the ruling and the outlets seek to establish that the restrictions were unconstitutional.
READ ALSO: UCL Wrap: Barca Flex, Brugge Shock Inter, Bayern Held as United’s Woes Continue
