CNN, MS NOW and Politico have asked a federal court to extend an order preventing the White House from enforcing its ban on the three news organisations, warning that access could be withdrawn again if the protection expires.
The outlets said the Trump administration had continued to apply the restrictions “unpredictably and inconsistently”, including by preventing CNN from carrying out its duties in the White House television pool.
Lawyers for the organisations told the court that the ban was “an unlawful assault on the most fundamental First Amendment freedoms” and would cause irreparable harm to the outlets and the public unless it was stopped.
The request follows a two-week temporary restraining order issued by US District Judge Timothy Kelly last week. The order restored the organisations’ access to the White House but is due to expire on 8 October.
The preliminary injunction sought by the news groups would maintain that access until their case against President Donald Trump and the White House is resolved.
White House says access is a privilege
The administration has defended the ban, which began on 19 September, by arguing that access to the White House is not a right.
Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a television interview on Sunday: “When it comes to the White House, it is the people’s house. It is a privilege, and not a right, to be there.”
The outlets’ lead lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr, described the restrictions as “a blatant violation of the First Amendment and due process”.
“The president and his administration have continued to make clear that this ban has only one purpose: to punish reporting he doesn’t like,” he said.
Mr Boutrous added: “That’s retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, pure and simple.”
The latest court filing also highlights a dispute over the White House broadcast pool, made up of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News. CNN was removed from its duties when the ban was imposed, prompting the other networks to suspend the arrangement in solidarity.
CNN was later permitted to cover a meeting involving Mr Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping at the National Archives. But the network was barred from Air Force One when the president travelled to Tennessee for a college football game, and the other networks declined to provide a replacement.
Mr Blanche defended that decision, saying: “The president has every right to decide who gets to fly on his plane.” He also said Mr Trump was “sick and tired of certain media outlets just refusing to report accurate news” and described misinformation as a national security issue.
Judge Kelly expressed doubt about that justification in his ruling on the temporary order, writing that he was “skeptical … that defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation” for restricting access.
The court did not directly rule on the television pool. In their new filing, the news organisations argued that the arrangement was an important part of regular access to the president and his activities.
The networks now face difficult choices over whether to provide coverage when one of their members is excluded. A person familiar with the pool’s operation said decisions were being made on a case-by-case basis, depending partly on the importance of the event.
David A. Schulz, director of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School, said the networks had “not a lot of good options”. RonNell Andersen Jones, a law professor at the University of Utah, said they risked appearing either to abandon press freedom or to fail in their duty to cover major government events.
