Judge blocks Trump's White House media ban, orders access to be restored
A federal judge temporarily blocked U.S. President Donald Trump's move to ban three news outlets from the White House grounds, saying early Thursday that CNN, MS NOW and Politico must have their access restored.
The legal battle has unfolded just weeks before the November 3 midterm elections
The Associated Press
·
Listen to this article
Estimated 4 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
A federal judge temporarily blocked U.S. President Donald Trump's move to ban three news outlets from the White House grounds, saying early Thursday that CNN, MS NOW and Politico must have their access restored.
It's the latest development in an escalating showdown between Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes. Trump announced he was banning the outlets Friday, assailing what he called "fake news," and later arguing that their reporting was a risk to national security. The outlets argued they were singled out because of the content of their coverage, calling ban a blatant First Amendment violation.
In an order, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said the media outlets had met the legal thresholds to obtain a temporary restraining order, in effect for 14 days. He said they were likely to succeed in showing that their White House press passes were revoked without due process.
"This is a high bar, but Plaintiffs have met it," he wrote.
Kelly said the government must have clear standards for conduct that would lead to revoking a press pass. He called the standard of objectionable reporting outlined in letters that the White House sent the outlets days after banning their reporters "so vague it hardly does the trick."
Kelly — whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist's access restored in a similar case in 2018 — heard arguments Wednesday and ended the hearing without ruling.
Temporary restraining orders are typically designed to preserve the status quo pending a closer review of the case by the court.
"This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law," Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the outlets, said in an emailed statement. "We greatly appreciate the court's swift action."
WATCH | 3 U.S. media outlets sue Trump administration :
3 U.S. media outlets sue Trump administration
September 21|
Duration
2:42
CNN, Politico and MS NOW are suing the Trump administration after being barred from the White House. Major U.S. networks are also suspending pooled coverage, escalating the fight over press access.The White House did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press requesting comment.
In an emergency hearing Wednesday, Kelly said his decision must be guided by prior rulings in comparable First Amendment cases, even if the government disagrees with them. His decision noted that the White House argued that previous cases cited had been wrongly decided.
"Maybe," Kelly wrote, "but this Court is bound by D.C. Circuit precedent, full stop."
Kelly also rejected the White House's claim that revoking the press passes was necessary for national security, saying officials did little to back up that notion. "Nothing in the record... suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes was motivated by national security concerns," he wrote.
"The Court is skeptical ... that Defendants' interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes."
WATCH | Did Trump just silence himself? :
Did Trump just silence himself? | About That
September 22|
Duration
2:55
After the U.S. president revoked White House media access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico, other major U.S. networks including Fox News pulled out of the TV pool coverage in solidarity. Andrew Chang breaks down what the coverage boycott could mean for Trump's media reach. (Photo credits: The Canadian Press, Reuters, Adobe Stock, De Nederlandsche Bank and Getty Images)In arguments Wednesday, attorneys debated access to White House and any risk to national security
Boutrous argued about the urgent need for a change, saying there had been irreparable harm to the outlets at a time of momentous news events. "We're at war. We have world leaders coming to Washington."
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik had reiterated the administration's point that the president had the right to choose who gets into the White House.
"Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right," Velchik said.
In arguing that Trump was not engaging in viewpoint discrimination, Velchik said the president had criticized other news organizations even more harshly -- such as calling ABC "the worst" -- but hadn't banned them.
"The president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security," Velchik told the court.
In response, Boutrous said, "Suddenly it's a national security case," arguing that the president brought up that point only after the lawsuit was filed.
Trump "keeps proving our point," Boutrous said, describing how the president has consistently used negative coverage of him as justification for the ban.
KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.