A federal judge has blocked Donald Trump’s attempt to bar reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, restoring their access while a legal challenge proceeds.
US District Judge Timothy Kelly granted the organisations’ request for a preliminary injunction. The order will remain in force for the duration of the case and found that the revocation of journalists’ White House hard passes likely breached their rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution.
Judge Kelly, who was appointed by Mr Trump, said the decision to withdraw the passes could deter a reasonable reporter or news organisation from publishing coverage that displeased the president.
“The revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes matters a lot as to how, whether, and to what extent they can do their jobs,” he wrote.
Mr Trump announced the ban after accusing the three organisations of “constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS”. Reporters who arrived at the White House the following day were turned away and had their credentials taken by the US Secret Service.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a lawsuit arguing that the move was retaliation for their reporting and violated the First Amendment. They also said they had been denied due process because they were not warned that their coverage could lead to the withdrawal of access, nor given a proper opportunity to respond.
The White House later sent the organisations letters setting out the president’s initial decision and giving them until September 25 to reply. The administration said the journalists had breached professional standards and published material raising national security concerns.
It provided lists of articles it claimed had “threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods”. However, most of the pieces cited had been written by journalists who did not hold White House hard passes. One Politico report had been based on a White House-organised press call, during which reporters were told to attribute comments to a “senior administration official”.
Judge questions justification for White House ban
At a hearing last week, Judge Kelly questioned a Justice Department lawyer about the administration’s explanation for the restrictions. He noted that the government’s arguments in court appeared different from Mr Trump’s public statements, in which the president had repeatedly complained about negative coverage and “constantly bad stories”.
Mr Kelly said the president “seems to have said publicly and on several occasions” that he was acting “because of X and Y, and now the government is coming to court saying no, it was actually Z”. He described the due-process issue as the Justice Department’s “biggest hurdle”.
In his ruling, the judge said the administration had not produced evidence that national security was the original basis for withdrawing the passes. Mr Trump had not mentioned national security when announcing the ban, he said, and later references to it appeared to describe his complaints about alleged inaccuracies and unfairness in the outlets’ reporting.
The organisations had previously secured temporary relief restoring access while the case was being considered. Judge Kelly’s latest ruling provides longer-term protection as the litigation continues. Mr Trump had said the Justice Department would appeal if the judge ruled against his administration.
The decision follows a wider dispute between the president and news organisations. Mr Trump has also restricted Associated Press access over its refusal to use the name “Gulf of America” for the Gulf of Mexico, although an appeals court has not yet ruled on the legal merits of that separate case.
His attempt to exclude CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the entire White House campus had marked an escalation of his conflict with the press. When announcing the restrictions, he warned that access could also be withdrawn from other outlets he described as “Fake News Media Outlets”.
