The legal battle over the Trump administration’s decision to bar CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House press operation is continuing, despite a federal judge ordering their access restored temporarily.
The administration complied with the court’s directive, allowing reporters from the three outlets back into the White House. But the ruling did not settle the broader constitutional dispute, leaving several important questions still before the court.
Temporary access, not a final victory
US District Judge Timothy Kelly in Washington ordered the restoration of the outlets’ access for 14 days while their lawsuit moves forward.
Kelly found that the journalists had a strong argument that their constitutional right to due process had been violated. His ruling relied on earlier legal precedents indicating that journalists who have been granted White House press credentials are entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before those credentials are taken away.
The judge, however, stopped short of deciding whether the administration’s action violated the First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
According to Kelly, there was no need to reach that broader constitutional question at the temporary stage because the due process issue alone justified blocking the administration’s ban.
The three outlets have until September 28 to seek a preliminary injunction. Such an order could keep the restrictions suspended while the underlying lawsuit continues.
Administration could take the fight to appeals court
If Kelly grants a preliminary injunction, the Trump administration could challenge that decision before the federal appeals court in Washington.
Trump had already signaled that he intended to appeal even before Kelly issued his ruling.
The dispute began after Trump announced on September 18 that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would no longer have White House access. He accused the organizations of repeatedly publishing what he described as false reporting about his presidency.
The Justice Department later defended the administration’s position in court, arguing that some of the outlets’ reporting raised national security concerns. The government pointed to coverage involving US missile stockpiles, construction of a White House ballroom and attendance at a Republican midterm convention.
The case has echoes of an earlier fight involving CNN correspondent Jim Acosta during Trump’s first term. Kelly presided over that dispute as well. After the judge initially ruled in Acosta’s favor, the White House restored his press credentials, and Acosta subsequently abandoned the lawsuit.
Could access be revoked again?
That remains one of the central concerns for the media organizations.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Theodore Boutrous, representing the three outlets, argued that resolving the dispute solely on due process grounds could leave the administration room to repeat the exclusion through a more formal procedure.
Boutrous urged Kelly to address the First Amendment claims as well, arguing that otherwise the administration could attempt to construct a new justification for barring the organizations.
He compared the situation to the legal dispute involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, where questions surrounding the procedures used to remove her became a significant part of the litigation.
Speaking to MS NOW after the ruling, Boutrous said the First Amendment arguments would become increasingly important as the case develops.
For now, the outlets have regained access, but the larger constitutional confrontation over who can be excluded from the White House press operation — and on what grounds — remains unresolved.
