CNN, MS NOW and Politico journalists regained access to the White House on Thursday after a federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s ban, ruling that the outlets were likely to succeed in showing their press credentials had been revoked without constitutionally adequate due process.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico returned to the White House grounds Thursday afternoon after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore their credentials, bringing an end — at least temporarily — to a days-long standoff over presidential press access.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order early Thursday directing the administration to “immediately return, reinstate and restore” the outlets’ White House access for 14 days while their lawsuit proceeds. Kelly concluded that the organizations were likely to succeed in arguing that their credentials had been revoked without adequate due process.
The restoration did not happen immediately.
Reporters from all three organizations arrived at the White House Thursday morning and were initially denied entry despite Kelly’s order, prompting the outlets to seek an emergency court hearing. Kelly directed the administration to explain the apparent noncompliance before journalists were ultimately allowed back onto the grounds later in the day.
CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins confirmed Thursday afternoon that she had regained access.
MS NOW likewise confirmed its journalists had been readmitted, while Politico reported that its access had also been restored.
The dispute began after Trump announced Sept. 18 that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would no longer be permitted on White House grounds. He accused the organizations of producing “fake news” and criticized their coverage of his administration. Their permanent White House credentials were subsequently deactivated, and reporters were turned away when they attempted to enter.
The three organizations sued Monday, arguing that the administration retaliated against them because of their reporting and violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights by revoking access without notice or an opportunity to challenge the decision.
The administration defended the restrictions in part on national security grounds and argued that access to the White House is a privilege rather than an unconditional right.
Kelly was unconvinced by the record presented to him.
“The court is skeptical — at least on this record — that defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes,” he wrote.
Kelly noted that Trump himself had publicly focused on what he regarded as inaccurate and negative coverage when announcing the ban rather than identifying a national security concern.
“For one thing, nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns,” Kelly wrote. “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 that the White House had not provided the journalists with sufficient notice of prohibited conduct or an opportunity to respond before taking away their credentials.
Kelly relied in part on existing D.C. Circuit precedent requiring procedural protections when White House press credentials are revoked. He said those precedents remain binding regardless of the administration’s contention that they were wrongly decided.
The press-access fight disrupted the longstanding White House pool system, under which a rotating group of journalists provides reports, photographs, audio and video from presidential events when space prevents the full press corps from attending.
After CNN was prevented from performing a scheduled television-pool assignment, other major television networks suspended presidential pool coverage in solidarity. Fox News, ABC, CBS and NBC were among the organizations participating in the protest, while the White House Correspondents’ Association condemned the exclusions.
The ban consequently affected more than the three targeted outlets. Because pool material is shared throughout the media, the dispute reduced independent audiovisual coverage available to news organizations across the country.
Kelly’s involvement also revived a dispute from Trump’s first term.
In 2018, Kelly ordered the White House to temporarily restore CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press credential after the Trump administration revoked it following a contentious presidential news conference. That ruling similarly focused on due-process protections surrounding White House access.
Trump appeared aware before Thursday’s ruling that the current case could end with the outlets returning.
Asked Tuesday about the litigation, Trump said he would “probably” allow the three organizations back if the courts ruled against his administration.
The temporary order does not resolve the broader lawsuit.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico are still seeking a final ruling on whether the administration violated their constitutional rights and whether the White House may exclude news organizations because of their coverage. The administration can continue defending the policy as the case proceeds.
For Thursday, however, the immediate practical effect was clear: after several days reporting from outside the White House gates — and several hours in which the administration continued denying entry even after Kelly issued his order — the three organizations were once again allowed onto the grounds.
Original article
Comments