By Anjali Sharma
WASHINGTON – US federal Judge Timothy Kelly on Wednesday has barred the Trump administration from banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House grounds.
Judge Timothy Kelly found that the three outlets likely to succeed on their free speech and due process claims.
Three newsrooms answered with one lawsuit and a stack of court filings. A judge from the president’s own list of nominees has told the White House that the gate stays open.
Media reports stated that the decision is a preliminary injunction. It is not a final verdict. It does, lock in the status quo while the case moves forward.
Reporters from all three outlets keep their credentials for now.
Kelly wrote that the administration “shall not execute, implement, or enforce” the September 18 decision to revoke the hard pass credentials of employees at the three outlets. A hard pass is the permanent press badge that lets a reporter enter the White House complex.
In his opinion, Kelly said the outlets are likely to win on their due process claim and on both of their First Amendment claims. That is a broad finding. It covers procedure and speech.
The temporary restraining order expired on Tuesday.
The new injunction means the White House cannot enforce the ban for the long term, either until a trial or until an appeal.
Kelly did not write a one-sided opinion. He said no one should read the ruling as proof that Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness are baseless.
He also said the government is not powerless when its true aim is to protect national security from the unlawful release of classified information.
The judge left room for the White House to act in a genuine security case. He simply did not see one here.
Trump announced on September 18 that he was barring the three outlets from White House grounds.
He complained that they were reporting fake news.
A day later, reporters who tried to enter the security checkpoint found their hard passes deactivated. Journalists from all three outlets were turned away.
Trump said at a news conference that the outlets produced negative news and tried to diminish his administration and the Republican Party. That comment would come back to haunt the government in court.
The move also caught some people inside the building off guard.
NBC News reported that the announcement surprised a number of senior White House aides.
The response was fast. On September 21, CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued the administration to restore access. Three rival newsrooms filed one joint complaint. That is rare.
They argued the ban violated the First Amendment. They also said it broke due process rules. In plain terms, they said the government punished them for their coverage and gave them no fair chance to respond.
Ted Boutrous argued the case for the outlets. He told the court that Trump “keeps proving our point,” because the president kept citing negative coverage as the reason for the ban.
Kelly moved quickly. He heard arguments on Wednesday, September 23, and ended the hearing without a ruling. The order came early the next morning.
The temporary restraining order told the administration to immediately return and restore access.
Kelly said the government’s national security argument lacked factual support.
All three media outlets were turned away on Thursday despite the judge’s order.
Journalists were let back onto the grounds a week after the ban began.
Betsy Klein of CNN and Laura Barrón-López of MS NOW began reported live right away.
A government filing helped explain the reversal.
A White House press operations official wrote that the outlets were likely to succeed, at least on the claim that their credentials were pulled last week without due process. That was a notable admission from the other side.
The Justice Department did not back down. It argued that the president can control reporters’ access to restricted areas such as the Oval Office. It called access to the White House a privilege and not a right.
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik repeated that the president has the right to choose who enters. He also pointed to the coming visits of world leaders.
The White House Press Office sent letters accused the outlets of spreading verifiable falsehoods about national security and of publishing sensitive or classified information.
Similar accusations were aimed at MS NOW and Politico.
In a court filing, White House lawyers described the ban as preliminary.
They said the outlets had until Friday to challenge it. The date in question was September 25. The government used that window to claim the outlets had received due process.
The outlets called that process a sham. MS NOW pointed out that the letters laying out the national security reasons were issued only a day after the lawsuit was filed. The order to leave came first. The reasons came later.
The judge also looked closely at the articles the White House cited.
Judge Kelly said those stories were routine. Some had been written months earlier. That made the claim of an urgent threat hard to believe.
The national security argument was also rejected in the first ruling, because officials offered little to support it. The same weakness followed the government into the second round.
The outlets did not fight alone. Over 77 media organizations and several press coalitions told the court they opposed the ban.
The support came from some surprising places. ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC said together that no administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.
Fox News is a frequent target of criticism from the left. Its signature on that statement showed how widely the concern was shared.
The White House Correspondents’ Association and 50 news organizations also filed a brief asking the court to undo the bans.
The conflict has spread past the White House gate. The outlets told the court the White House kept “unpredictably targeting” them.
They said CNN and Politico had recently been banned from Air Force One.
Trump also appeared to suggest that CNN should not cover him outside the White House either. That remark raises a bigger question. If courts protect access to the grounds, will the administration look for other ways to limit coverage?
The press corps has seen this before. Access fights are not new. What is new is the scale.
Three major outlets lost their passes at once, and the government gave its reasons only after the lawsuit began.
