A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore White House access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico for 14 days, finding that the outlets are likely to succeed on their claim that their press credentials were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
A federal judge early Thursday temporarily blocked the White House from excluding CNN, MS NOW and Politico, ordering the Trump administration to immediately restore credentials that were revoked after President Donald Trump barred the three organizations from White House grounds.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted the outlets a temporary restraining order lasting 14 days while their broader constitutional challenge proceeds.
The order requires administration officials, other than Trump himself, to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” the White House hard-pass credentials held by employees of the three organizations.
Kelly concluded that CNN, MS NOW and Politico had satisfied the demanding legal requirements for emergency relief and were likely to succeed on their claim that the government deprived them of due process when it abruptly revoked their access.
“This is a high bar, but Plaintiffs have met it,” Kelly wrote.
The ruling does not resolve the lawsuit or amount to a final judgment on all of the outlets’ First and Fifth Amendment claims. Temporary restraining orders generally preserve conditions while a court considers the dispute more fully. Kelly’s order remains in effect for 14 days unless the court modifies it.
Trump announced the ban Sept. 18, initially criticizing the three organizations over what he called “fake news” and negative reporting. The restrictions began being enforced the following day.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico subsequently sued, alleging the government had punished them because of the content and viewpoint of their journalism.
The administration later argued that its action was also based on reporting it said threatened national security and disclosed sensitive information. Kelly expressed skepticism about that explanation.
“Nothing in the record … suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns,” he wrote.
Kelly contrasted that explanation with Trump’s original public justification for the ban.
“Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ Plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting.”
The judge also found problems with the standards the administration said the outlets had violated.
Letters sent to the three organizations Sept. 22 accused them of conduct inconsistent with “the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex.”
Kelly said the record lacked sufficiently clear standards established before the credentials were revoked.
He described one of the standards presented by the administration as “so vague it hardly does the trick.”
The ruling followed an emergency hearing Wednesday during which Kelly repeatedly questioned whether the White House had provided adequate notice and an opportunity for the affected organizations to respond before revoking their credentials.
Theodore Boutrous Jr., an attorney representing the outlets, argued that losing White House access was causing continuing and irreparable harm to their ability to cover the presidency.
“We’re at war. We have world leaders coming to Washington,” Boutrous said, pointing to major events occurring while the organizations remained excluded.
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik defended the administration’s authority over entry to White House property.
“Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” Velchik said.
He argued that Trump had not engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, noting that the president regularly criticizes other news organizations without excluding them from the White House. Trump, for example, has called ABC “the worst,” Velchik said.
“The president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security,” he added.
Boutrous challenged that rationale, arguing that national security became a central administration defense only after the outlets went to court.
“Suddenly it’s a national security case,” he said.
Trump “keeps proving our point,” Boutrous added, arguing that the president’s own statements tied the restrictions to dissatisfaction with the organizations’ reporting.
Kelly’s written ruling similarly questioned whether national security actually drove the decision. He noted that some of the articles subsequently identified by the White House had been published months before the bans and that the government had not demonstrated how the reporting damaged national security.
The administration provided specific examples in its court filings and in letters sent to the organizations.
CNN was cited for reporting on “‘top-secret’ construction details related to the East Wing bunker.”
The White House accused MS NOW of reporting “on an alleged leak investigation.”
Politico was cited for publishing “a document detailing funding for the White House ballroom containing intricate descriptions of how the Secret Service would invest in security improvements.”
The administration also pointed to a Politico article from June involving comments from a “senior administration official … granted anonymity” about whether a preliminary agreement would end the conflict with Iran.
That example involved a background briefing organized by the White House in which an administration official spoke to reporters under anonymity rules established by the administration. Other news organizations also reported the official’s remarks.
Kelly noted more broadly that some of the journalism cited by the government was produced by reporters who did not hold the White House hard passes that were ultimately revoked.
The dispute has also affected the White House television press pool.
Following the administration’s decision to exclude CNN, the U.S. network television pool — consisting of the major television networks, including CNN — suspended participation in Trump pool events.
The suspension continued Wednesday while Kelly considered the emergency request.
When Trump formally welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping at Joint Base Andrews, journalists representing Fox News, CBS and NBC were present but did not record video as part of the traditional network pool arrangement.
Other television organizations with crews at the event included NewsNation, Newsmax, Right Side Broadcasting Network, One America News and LindellTV.
The White House press pool provides shared reporting, photography and video from presidential events where space prevents every news organization from attending independently.
Other media organizations also entered the legal dispute on the side of the three plaintiffs. The Associated Press was among the news groups that filed an amicus brief urging Kelly to restore the outlets’ access.
The current case follows earlier court battles over White House press credentials.
Kelly, whom Trump nominated to the federal bench in 2017, handled CNN’s 2018 challenge after the first Trump administration revoked correspondent Jim Acosta’s White House credential. Kelly ordered the credential temporarily restored after finding that CNN was likely to prevail on its due-process argument.
Another federal case involving reporter Brian Karem similarly established that the White House must provide adequate notice of conduct that can result in suspension of a press pass and a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Kelly said existing precedent governs the current dispute even though Justice Department attorneys argued that some of those earlier rulings were wrongly decided.
Theodore Boutrous welcomed Thursday’s decision.
“This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law,” he said in an emailed statement. “We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action.”
The White House had not immediately issued a response to the ruling when The Associated Press first reported the decision.
The underlying lawsuit will continue.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico contend the ban violated the First Amendment by discriminating against them based on their coverage as well as the Fifth Amendment by depriving them of due process.
The administration maintains that the president possesses broad authority to control access to White House property and that restrictions may be imposed to protect national security and preserve standards of conduct.
Kelly’s temporary ruling was narrower. Rather than resolving every constitutional issue raised by the lawsuit, he concluded that the outlets had shown enough at this stage to establish that their credentials were likely revoked without the procedures required by existing law.
For the next 14 days, his order requires the administration to restore the three organizations’ White House hard passes while the court continues examining the legality of the ban.
Original article
Comments