Federal Judge Orders White House to Restore Access for CNN, MS NOW, Politico

A United States federal judge, in a significant ruling on Thursday, commanded President Donald Trump to grant journalists from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico renewed entry to the White House. The judge indicated that the president's prohibition against these three news organizations was likely to violate the constitution.

This decision marks a considerable reversal for President Trump amidst his ongoing disputes with the press. US District Judge Tim Kelly delivered his directive as part of a legal challenge initiated by the news groups, who were disputing a ban first declared by the president on September 18.

Judge Kelly's order stipulated that the Trump administration must promptly return the press credentials of these outlets and prevent any enforcement of the ban by officials for a period of 14 days. The court dismissed the government's claim that the prohibition was enacted due to considerations of national security.

He elaborated, stating, "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." The judge further noted that President Trump himself had publicly attributed the ban to the "alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity" in the reporting from these news organizations.

There was no immediate response from the White House or representatives for the affected media outlets regarding requests for comment. Earlier, President Trump had expressed on social media that the three organizations "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES," while Justice Department lawyers had attempted to justify the ban based on national security concerns.

The three news organizations had filed a lawsuit against Trump and other members of his administration in a federal court in Washington on Monday. They argued that the ban infringed upon the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which safeguards free speech and a free press, as well as their due process rights. Their legal action sought a temporary restraining order to immediately reinstate their White House access while the broader legal battle unfolds.

This legal confrontation comes just weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, where Republicans are striving to maintain their control of Congress. President Trump's approval ratings are currently at historic lows in public opinion polls, amidst public concerns over issues such as the Iran war and inflation.

During a hearing on Wednesday, Judge Kelly referenced two precedents from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. These precedents, he noted, clearly establish that journalists are entitled to due process before their White House press passes can be revoked. The judge added that it did not appear the White House had offered the targeted news outlets a meaningful chance to contest the revocation of their access.

An attorney representing the news outlets informed Judge Kelly that their ban was imposed without the legally required prior notice or an opportunity to challenge the decisions, which he characterized as unprecedented, unreasonable, and severe penalties. Conversely, a Justice Department lawyer asserted that the Trump administration had provided an adequate explanation for the revocation of the press passes through letters sent to the news outlets on Tuesday. However, the judge expressed skepticism about this argument, pointing out that these letters were dispatched after the revocation had occurred and the lawsuit had already been filed.

In a legal brief submitted on Tuesday, the Justice Department contended that access to the White House is a privilege, not a right, and that the president possesses the authority to suspend access for news organizations. A coalition comprising press freedom advocacy groups and dozens of news organizations filed a supporting legal brief on Wednesday, backing the three news outlets. They argued that "stripping journalists and news outlets of their rights because of perceived editorial viewpoint violates decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence."