US judge orders Trump administration to restore access for three media outlets

A US federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to restore White House press access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico, finding that the ban imposed on the three outlets was likely unconstitutional.

US District Judge Tim Kelly issued the order after the three news organisations challenged the administration’s decision to revoke their White House press passes on September 18.

Kelly directed the administration to reinstate the journalists’ access immediately and prohibited officials from enforcing the ban for 14 days while the legal challenge proceeds.

Judge questions national security justification

In his ruling, Kelly rejected the government’s argument that the restrictions were justified on national security grounds.

The judge said the administration had not provided sufficient factual evidence to demonstrate that revoking the outlets’ hard passes would protect national security or that restoring their access during the litigation would pose a security risk.

Kelly also pointed to Trump’s own explanation for the decision, noting that the president had cited what he described as the outlets’ lack of truthfulness and negative coverage.

The ruling said the government’s justification therefore did not establish a sufficient basis for the immediate removal of the journalists’ access.

Administration argued access was a presidential privilege

The Justice Department had argued that access to the White House was a privilege rather than a constitutional right and maintained that the president had authority to suspend access to journalists.

The ruling represents a temporary judicial setback for the administration in its dispute with the three media organisations.

The White House and representatives of CNN, MS NOW and Politico had not immediately responded to requests for comment, according to Reuters.

Trump had said on social media that the three outlets “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES,” and Justice Department lawyers had sought to justify the ban on national security grounds.

The three outlets sued Trump and other members of his administration in federal court in Washington on Monday, saying the ban violated the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections for free speech and a free press, as well as their due process rights. They requested a temporary restraining order that would immediately reinstate their White House access while their legal challenge plays out.

The legal battle has unfolded just weeks before the November 3 midterm elections in which Trump’s fellow Republicans are fighting to retain control of Congress. Trump’s job approval ratings are at record lows in opinion polls amid concerns over issues such as the Iran war and inflation.

Kelly said at a Wednesday hearing that two precedents from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit made clear that journalists are entitled to due process before their White House press passes can be revoked. The judge added that it did not appear that the White House had given the targeted news outlets a meaningful opportunity to contest the revocation of their access.

A lawyer for the news outlets told Kelly that they were banned without legally required advance notice or opportunity to contest the decisions, which he said were unprecedented, unreasonable and severe punishments.

A Justice Department lawyer told the judge the Trump administration provided a sufficient explanation for the revocation of the press passes in letters sent to the news outlets on Tuesday. But the judge signaled skepticism of that argument, noting that the letters were sent after the revocation occurred and the lawsuit was filed.

In a legal filing on Tuesday, the Justice Department argued that access to the White House is a privilege, not an entitlement, and that the president has the authority to suspend access by news organisations.

A coalition of press freedom groups and dozens of news organisations filed a legal brief on Wednesday supporting the three news outlets. They asserted that “stripping journalists and news outlets of their rights because of perceived editorial viewpoint violates decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence.”

The brief was signed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reuters, the Washington Post and Fox News, among others.