A federal judge in Washington has raised doubts over the legal process used by the Trump administration to bar journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, signaling that the media organizations could receive temporary relief while their broader lawsuit continues.
US District Judge Timothy Kelly, during a hearing, questioned whether the administration had followed established legal procedures before withdrawing the outlets’ access. He pointed specifically to earlier rulings requiring the government to give affected news organizations a meaningful opportunity to respond before their press credentials are revoked.
Kelly stopped short of issuing an immediate decision on the outlets’ request for a temporary restraining order. He said he expected to rule soon.
The dispute began after President Donald Trump announced the restrictions on Friday. In a social media post, Trump accused the three organizations of repeatedly publishing what he described as false reporting about his presidency.
The administration has since defended the decision on national security grounds.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico challenged the restrictions in federal court, arguing that the administration violated constitutional protections for freedom of the press and freedom of speech. They also contend that the government denied them due process by removing their access without giving them a meaningful chance to contest the decision beforehand.
During Wednesday’s hearing, attorney Theodore Boutrous argued that the administration’s own statements showed the restrictions were linked to the outlets’ reporting.
The Justice Department took a different position, maintaining that access to the White House is a privilege rather than an unconditional right. Government lawyers argued that the president has broad authority to determine which media organizations receive access and pointed to national security concerns surrounding some of the outlets’ reporting.
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik accused the organizations of publishing classified information and argued that the administration had provided an adequate explanation for its actions.
But Kelly questioned whether letters sent to the outlets after their credentials had already been revoked could satisfy the requirement for advance notice and an opportunity to respond.
He also noted that two previous decisions from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared to require a process that had not been followed in this case.
The government has argued that those earlier rulings were wrongly decided. Kelly acknowledged that position but said a district court was still required to follow binding appellate precedent.
The case also carries a personal history for Kelly. In 2018, he ordered the White House to restore the press credentials of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after the administration revoked them following a tense exchange between Acosta and Trump at a news conference. Kelly concluded at the time that the White House had failed to follow fair and clearly defined procedures.
Trump has since criticized Kelly publicly, including questioning his own decision to appoint the judge and suggesting that the administration could lose the latest court fight.
The three media organizations have received support from a broad group of press-freedom organizations and news outlets. A legal brief filed in the case argued that government officials cannot withdraw press access because they object to the viewpoint or editorial approach of a particular news organization.
The dispute is now awaiting Kelly’s ruling on whether the restrictions should remain in place while the larger constitutional challenge proceeds.
