Federal Judge Orders Temporary Restoration of White House Access for CNN, MS Now, and Politico
A United States federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to bar three major media outlets — CNN, MS Now, and Politico — from the White House, describing the ban as likely unconstitutional.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) compelling the administration to reinstate the journalists’ press passes for 14 days. The order preserves the status quo while the court undertakes a deeper review of the case.
Justice Kelly emphasized that due process rights must be respected before revoking a journalist’s White House accreditation. He cited established case law requiring advance notice of infractions and an opportunity to be heard before such deprivation occurs. He noted that the administration’s letters to the outlets — sent after the ban and lawsuit — failed to meet constitutional standards.
The Trump administration had justified the ban on grounds of “national security” and alleged breaches of “professionalism and decorum.” However, the judge found these claims vague and unsupported, stressing that the government had not clearly articulated the standards violated. He further observed that President Trump’s public statements focused on the outlets’ alleged “fake news” and “negativity,” rather than national security concerns.
The affected outlets — CNN, MS Now, and Politico — had sued, arguing that the ban violated the First Amendment protections for free speech and press freedom, as well as their due process rights. They contended that the revocation was retaliatory, targeting their editorial viewpoint.
A coalition of press freedom groups, including Reuters, The Washington Post, Fox News, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, filed briefs supporting the outlets. They argued that stripping journalists of access based on perceived bias contravenes decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Justice Kelly, himself a Trump appointee, concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that their passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process. He also noted the likelihood of irreparable harm if the restraining order was not granted, given the centrality of White House access to their reporting.
