Trump’s Media Ban Overruled: All 3 Outlets Can Cover the White House Again
A US court temporarily restored White House access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico.
By Sakshi
New Delhi, September 24: A federal court on Thursday ordered that CNN, MS NOW and Politico be allowed back onto White House grounds, temporarily overturning President Donald Trump's prohibition. The development came amid growing tensions between Trump and media organisations over what the US President has described as “fake news”.
Court Says White House Failed to Show Clear Grounds for Revoking Press Access
Attacking the three news organisations, Trump claimed their reporting posed a threat to national security when he announced on Friday that he was banning them. The outlets argued that the ban was a blatant violation of the First Amendment because it singled them out based on the content of their coverage.
US District Judge Timothy Kelly issued an order stating that the media outlets had met the legal requirements for a 14-day temporary restraining order. He said they were likely to succeed in showing that their White House press passes had been revoked without due process, according to news agency AP.
“This is a high bar, but Plaintiffs have met it,” he said.
The ruling gives the news outlets a temporary reprieve in the escalating showdown between Trump and media organisations whose coverage he views as negative. The administration, however, has repeatedly sought to challenge coverage it dislikes.
Kelly said the government must have clear standards for conduct that could lead to the revocation of a press pass. He described the standard of objectionable reporting outlined in letters sent by the White House to the outlets as “so vague it hardly does the trick”.
Kelly, whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist's access restored in a similar case in 2018, heard arguments on Wednesday. Temporary restraining orders are generally intended to preserve the status quo while a court conducts a closer review of a case.
“This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law,” Theodore Boutrous Jr., an attorney for the outlets, said in an emailed statement. “We greatly appreciate the court's swift action.”
The White House did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press seeking comment.
At an emergency hearing on Wednesday, Kelly said his decision must be guided by previous rulings in comparable First Amendment cases, even if the government disagrees with them. His decision noted that the White House had argued that the previous cases cited by the outlets had been wrongly decided.
“Maybe,” Kelly wrote, “but this Court is bound by D.C. Circuit precedent, full stop.”
Kelly also rejected the White House's claim that revoking the press passes was necessary for national security, saying officials had provided little evidence to support the argument.
“Nothing in the record ... suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes was motivated by national security concerns,” he wrote.
“The Court is skeptical ... that Defendants' interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes.”
During Wednesday's arguments, attorneys debated access to the White House and the alleged national security risks posed by the outlets' reporting.
Boutrous argued that urgent action was needed, saying the outlets were facing irreparable harm at a time of major news events.
“We're at war. We have world leaders coming to Washington,” he said.
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik reiterated the administration's position that the president has the authority to decide who is granted access to the White House.
“Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” Velchik said.
Arguing that Trump was not engaging in viewpoint discrimination, Velchik said the president had criticised other news organisations even more harshly, including ABC, which he called “the worst”, but had not banned them.
“The president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security,” Velchik told the court.
In response, Boutrous said, “Suddenly it's a national security case,” arguing that the president had raised national security only after the lawsuit was filed.
Trump “keeps proving our point,” Boutrous said, arguing that the president had consistently used negative coverage of him as a justification for the ban.
In a filing on Tuesday, administration lawyers detailed letters sent to each of the three news organisations that identified “a non-exhaustive list of reporting incidents, including those that have threatened national security and spread falsehoods”.
The “reporting incidents” cited included CNN's reporting on “top-secret” construction details related to the East Wing bunker; MS NOW's reporting on “an alleged leak investigation”; and Politico's publication of “a document detailing funding for the White House ballroom containing intricate descriptions of how the Secret Service would invest in security improvements”.
The letters also cited further examples involving individual outlets. Politico's letter detailed six reporting instances, including one from June that cited a “senior administration official ... granted anonymity” predicting whether a preliminary deal would end the conflict with Iran.
That report appeared to reference a background briefing arranged by the White House, during which an official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House itself. Several other outlets also reported the official's remarks.
(With Agency Inputs)
