Judge Sides with Media Outlets in White House Access Dispute

A federal judge has ruled in favor of three media outlets in their disagreement with President Trump regarding access to White House grounds.

Although the networks and their counsel seem pleased with the ruling, Trump has made it clear he intends to keep fighting.

‘Plaintiffs have engaged in a number of reporting incidents that have threatened national security.’

Background

Last Friday, Trump declared that he was prohibiting CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from White House premises due to their “fake news” reporting. He emphasized that “media outlets shouldn’t be allowed to constantly report fiction and lies when covering the President or the nation.”

In response to Trump’s announcement, members of the White House television pool, including Fox News, banded together to protest by ceasing pooled coverage.

The three networks subsequently filed a lawsuit against Trump, two of his aides, and U.S. Secret Service Director Sean Curran. They contended that the ban represents a direct assault on First Amendment rights and a blatant violation of fundamental constitutional principles.

Claiming the ban infringes on their First Amendment rights and due process as outlined in the Fifth Amendment, the media outlets requested their White House press credentials be reinstated along with a declaration of the ban’s unconstitutionality.

Current Developments

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed by Trump, was not swayed by the White House’s arguments.

On Thursday, Judge Kelly granted a temporary restraining order lasting 14 days, directing the White House to restore press credentials for employees of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.

In his order, Kelly noted that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on their Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim. He further observed that none of the defendants’ justifications were convincing in arguing against the plaintiffs’ likely success on that claim.

Kelly dismissed the White House’s assertion that the ban stemmed from national security worries, stating that Trump’s announcement focused more on the purported inaccuracies and negativity in the plaintiffs’ reporting.

“Defendants have not provided any declarations or supporting evidence—whether classified or unclassified—indicating how the reporting in question has harmed national security,” he wrote.

In a preemptive move, Trump indicated the potential for an appeal, stating, “As usual, we’ll go for appeal because those who violate our national security with false reporting shouldn’t have access to the most important office in the world.”

Ted Boutrous, the attorney representing the media outlets, characterized the ruling as a strong affirmation of press freedom, due process, and the rule of law, thanking the court for its swift action.

The White House has not released an immediate comment regarding this ruling.