Justice Department lawyers are asking a federal court to leave President Donald Trump’s restrictions on CNN, Politico and MSNOW in place, arguing that White House access is a privilege and that the administration acted over concerns involving professional standards and sensitive or classified information.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
The Justice Department is defending President Donald Trump’s decision to remove CNN, Politico and MSNOW from White House grounds, telling a federal judge that the administration acted lawfully and urging the court to reject the news organizations’ request for immediate restoration of their credentials.
The dispute is now before U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly in Washington after the three organizations jointly challenged the restrictions and sought a temporary restraining order. Kelly, whom Trump appointed to the federal bench during his first term, previously presided over a separate White House access case involving CNN correspondent Jim Acosta.
Trump announced last week that the three organizations would no longer receive White House access, citing what he characterized as “fake news” coverage. The outlets responded with litigation alleging that the government retaliated against them because of their reporting and violated their First Amendment and due-process rights.
The Justice Department rejected those arguments in its opposition to the outlets’ request for a temporary restraining order, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The government described the revocation as preliminary and said the organizations had been given until Sept. 25 to challenge the factual basis for the decision.
“Plaintiffs CNN, MSNOW, and Politico have long been granted privileged access to White House grounds,” the DOJ wrote in a court filing. “But the President concluded that they have failed to maintain basic minimum “standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including” by ‘publishing sensitive or classified information.'”
Justice Department attorneys argued that White House access is not an automatic constitutional entitlement and said the president has legitimate interests in determining which journalists receive credentials allowing regular entry to the complex. The filing maintains that the government may enforce standards governing journalists granted such access and has a compelling interest in protecting national-security information.
The administration identified several reports it said contributed to the decision. According to the filing, the White House accused CNN of disclosing sensitive construction information involving an East Wing bunker, MSNOW of reporting information concerning an alleged leak investigation and Politico of publishing a document containing security-related details connected to the White House ballroom project. Those are allegations advanced by the administration as its justification for withdrawing access; the court has not ruled on whether they support the restrictions.
The government also disputed the outlets’ claim that the restrictions amounted to unconstitutional retaliation for criticism of Trump. DOJ lawyers argued that the administration would have taken the same action regardless of the organizations’ criticism because of what officials described as concerns about national security and professional conduct. They also noted that other news organizations critical of Trump continue to have White House access.
The filing further argues that the outlets are unlikely to prevail on their due-process claim because the administration subsequently provided written explanations and an opportunity to respond before the president’s initial determination becomes final. DOJ attorneys said that process is sufficient even if the organizations possess a constitutionally protected interest in continued access.
CNN, Politico and MSNOW have taken the opposite position, arguing in their lawsuit that they lost access because Trump objected to their coverage and viewpoints. Their request for emergency relief asks Kelly to restore their ability to enter the White House while the underlying constitutional claims are litigated.
The central First Amendment dispute involves distinctions federal courts have drawn between general access to government property, established White House press facilities and restricted presidential spaces such as the Oval Office.
In its filing, the Justice Department cited decisions recognizing greater presidential discretion over access to certain restricted locations. It also acknowledged existing D.C. Circuit precedent holding that when White House press facilities have been opened to journalists, access cannot be denied arbitrarily or without sufficiently strong justification. The administration told the court it believes that precedent was wrongly decided and reserved the right to challenge it on appeal.
That legal history places Kelly in familiar territory.
During Trump’s first term, Kelly considered CNN’s challenge after the White House revoked Acosta’s hard pass following a contentious November 2018 news conference. Kelly ordered Acosta’s credential temporarily restored, concluding that CNN had demonstrated a likelihood of succeeding on its Fifth Amendment due-process claim because Acosta had not been given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.
Kelly emphasized at the time that his decision was narrow. He did not decide whether the White House had violated CNN or Acosta’s First Amendment rights, and he specifically said he had not reached the broader question of viewpoint discrimination. The White House later permanently restored Acosta’s credential, and CNN ended that lawsuit.
The current litigation presents a broader dispute because Trump’s action applies to three news organizations rather than an individual correspondent and directly involves the administration’s stated objections to their reporting.
DOJ attorneys nevertheless contend that the organizations have not demonstrated the requirements necessary for emergency judicial relief. In addition to disputing their constitutional claims, the government argues that they have not shown irreparable harm sufficient to justify a temporary restraining order and that the balance of equities and public interest favor the administration.
Kelly must now determine whether the restrictions can remain in effect while the lawsuit proceeds or whether CNN, Politico and MSNOW should regain White House access during the litigation.
His ruling on the emergency request would not necessarily resolve the broader case. The underlying lawsuit raises questions over how far a president’s discretion over White House press access extends when the administration cites journalistic conduct and national-security concerns while the affected organizations allege they were excluded because officials disapproved of their coverage.
Original article
Comments