Federal Judge Extends Order Restoring White House Access to Three News Outlets

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a preliminary injunction that keeps CNN, MS NOW and Politico’s “hard-pass” White House press credentials in place while their lawsuit proceeds. The judge concluded that President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke the passes likely violated the First Amendment and denied the Justice Department’s claim that national-security concerns justified the ban.

CNNDW NewsAssociated PressPolitico'Furious' judge extends order barring Trump administration from removing more trees from DC public golf course NBC News

In September 2023, President Trump announced via a social-media post that the three outlets’ reporters would be barred from the White House, labeling their coverage “fake news.” The administration’s action removed the credentials of 78 reporters across the three organizations. The outlets filed a suit in Washington, D.C., alleging violations of due-process and free-speech rights.

Associated Press

• September 18, 2023 – President Trump publicly announces the bans.

CNN

• Late September 2023 – Judge Kelly issues a temporary order restoring the “hard passes.”

Politico

• Tuesday (date of ruling) – Judge Kelly extends the preliminary injunction, preserving the status quo for the duration of the case.

DW News

• 78 reporters were affected by the revocation of “hard-pass” credentials.

Associated Press

• He noted the lack of any evidence that the ban was motivated by national-security concerns.

CNN

• Justice Department attorneys argued that the White House’s authority to control press access is a privilege, not a right, and that the ban was intended to protect classified information and curb misinformation. They cited reporting on the Iran war, the East Wing ballroom construction and the midterm GOP convention as examples of alleged national-security issues.

CNN

• Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik contended that the president has discretion to remove reporters and that “CNN has been on notice for years,” suggesting the ban was within presidential authority.

CNN

• “When the President issued his ‘ban on the free press,’ he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment,” — Theodore Boutrous

Associated Press

• “The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The Court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on the free press’ for the foreseeable future.” — Timothy Kelly, district judge

Associated Press

• “President Trump’s own comments suggest that he intended the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes to alter their reporting on him, bolstering the case that his action here is sufficient to deter a reporter of ordinary firmness from reporting in the same way she had before,” — Timothy Kelly, district judge

Associated Press

• “In the end, Defendants do not even bother to identify what specific information in any of these ‘reporting incidents’ was allegedly classified or sensitive,” — Timothy Kelly, district judge

CNN

• The Justice Department asserted a national-security rationale for the bans, yet Judge Kelly found “no evidence in the record” that any specific classified information was cited. The administration has not produced any sealed or redacted documents to substantiate the claim, leaving a factual gap regarding the alleged security threat.

CNN

The administration may appeal Judge Kelly’s injunction. The case will continue to be litigated in federal court, with both sides expected to present further evidence on the constitutional and security dimensions of White House press access.

DW News