A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing President Donald Trump’s administration from barring journalists working for CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from White House grounds, finding that the restrictions likely violated constitutional protections for the press.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, ruled that the three news organizations were likely to prevail on claims involving due process, retaliation and viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.
The decision extends protections previously established through a temporary restraining order, which expired Tuesday, and prevents the administration from reinstating the restrictions while the litigation proceeds.
Trump announced September 18 that he was prohibiting the three organizations from accessing White House grounds, accusing them of publishing unfavorable and inaccurate reporting. Reporters attempting to enter the White House the following day discovered that their permanent security credentials, commonly called hard passes, had been deactivated.
The organizations subsequently filed suit, prompting Kelly to issue a temporary restraining order requiring the White House to restore access.
In a 26-page opinion released late Tuesday evening, Kelly concluded that the administration likely violated established procedural protections by revoking the credentials without adequate notice or an opportunity to challenge the decision.
“To put it mildly, Plaintiffs likely did not receive notice either of the conduct that would subject them to revocation of their hard passes, or of the magnitude of the revocation sanction itself,” Kelly wrote.
The White House sent letters explaining its decision September 22, four days after the restrictions were announced.
Kelly also found that Trump’s public statements provided substantial evidence that the ban was intended to punish the organizations for their editorial coverage.
“The record is clear that President Trump made the decision at issue,” Kelly wrote. “And his announcement of the ban and later remarks explaining the reason for it make this a straightforward conclusion: President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him.”
Federal attorneys defended the restrictions partly on national security grounds, citing reporting involving sensitive government information. The judge rejected that justification, finding insufficient evidence that national security concerns motivated Trump’s original decision.
Kelly nevertheless cautioned that his ruling did not prevent the government from taking legitimate action to protect classified information or establish that Trump’s criticisms of news coverage were necessarily unfounded.
Theodore Boutrous Jr., the lead attorney representing the news organizations, welcomed the decision.
“The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound,” Boutrous said in a statement. “The court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on the free press’ for the foreseeable future.”
The ruling requires the organizations to post a nominal $1 bond.
The preliminary injunction does not resolve the underlying lawsuit, which could proceed to trial or further appellate review. But supporters of the news outlets are already taking a victory lap after the court issued its strongest ruling in favor of press access to date.
“This decision is a stinging defeat for Trump’s assault on the free press and a powerful vindication of the First Amendment. As Kelly rightly recognized, presidents don’t get to use their power to purge journalists because they don’t like what they report,” Caitlin Vogus, a senior advisor for Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement by e-mail.
Vogus continued: “This decision is a stinging defeat for Trump’s assault on the free press and a powerful vindication of the First Amendment. As Kelly rightly recognized, presidents don’t get to use their power to purge journalists because they don’t like what they report.”
Nonetheless, Vogus said there was little reason to doubt that Trump and the White House will look for ways to circumvent the order.
“We have every reason to expect the administration will appeal Kelly’s latest order and also continue to prevent CNN and Politico from participating in pool coverage of the president,” Vogus said. “Higher courts should reject this ban quickly and decisively. Trump must not be allowed to trample on fundamental First Amendment protections by handpicking his press corps or turning pool duties into a reward for favorable coverage.”
Separately, the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating whether other news outlets violated federal antitrust laws when they agreed to collectively boycott the White House press pool when CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO had their credentials revoked.
The probe centers on the largest four television news networks — ABC News, CBS News, Fox News and NBC News — as well as CNN, which was scheduled to participate in the White House press pool shortly after the White House revoked their credentials.
Those outlets, and others, declined to provide substitute coverage while the ban was in force. The White House press pool has since returned to mostly-normal operations.
More Stories
- Report: DOJ probes boycott by TV networks over White House pool restrictions
- Skydance CEO voices support for CNN lawsuit against Trump
- White House again bans CNN from traveling press pool
- TV networks resume White House pool coverage after access dispute
- News outlets sign letter opposing Trump ban on CNN, MS NOW, POLITICO
- Networks back CNN in opposing White House pool changes; lawsuit filed against Trump
- CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters denied White House access
