Judge Blocks Trump’s Ban on Journalists from White House

A federal judge halted the Trump administration’s attempt to ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico journalists from the White House. The move, deemed a violation of the First Amendment and due process rights, sees a preliminary injunction issued to preserve their access.

U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, issued a 26-page opinion. He concluded the outlets are likely to succeed in claims related to the violation of Fifth Amendment rights and unlawful viewpoint discrimination. As a result, administration officials, except Trump, are prevented from enforcing the September 18 decision that revoked the journalists’ White House credentials, while the legal proceedings continue.

The administration contended that the revocations served national security interests. However, Kelly refuted this justification, highlighting a lack of evidence connecting the President’s decision to national security concerns.

The judge emphasized the risk of irreparable harm, pointing to the loss of constitutional freedoms, which, even if temporary, amounts to irreparable injury. Trump initially justified the ban, announced on September 18, by accusing the outlets of publishing ‘fake news.’

After the announcement, reporters from these organizations were denied entry when their hard passes were deactivated. The journalists argued the ban breached Fifth Amendment due process rights and constituted First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.

In prior proceedings, Kelly had issued a temporary restraining order to restore credential access. He cited D.C. Circuit precedent, which upholds that holders of White House hard passes have protected constitutional interests in maintaining their credentials. Hence, they cannot be removed without appropriate due process.

The judge referenced Trump’s public remarks about the ban, which suggested a bias in media coverage. Kelly labeled this as ‘unlawful viewpoint discrimination.’ He rejected the Department of Justice’s stance that White House access is merely a ‘privilege’ and not a right, along with their demands for greater press access control by the president. Despite claims of unprofessional conduct and potential national security leaks, the judge’s decision favored the media outlets.