Judge Briefly Extends Lift on Trump’s White House Media Ban

A federal judge will briefly extend an order allowing journalists with CNN, MS NOW and Politico to have access to the White House grounds until Tuesday, as he weighs whether to impose a longer-term reprieve while the outlets pursue their lawsuit against the Trump administration.

US District Judge Timothy J. Kelly heard arguments Thursday and expressed skepticism that the government could defeat claims that it failed to provide enough advance notice before enforcing the ban on reporters. He described it at one point as the “biggest hurdle that you all have.”

Kelly issued a temporary order in September that lifted the ban for two weeks, giving him an opportunity to hear arguments on whether an extended ruling is necessary. He said during the latest hearing that he would rule by Oct. 13 and possibly sooner. The ban can’t be enforced until then.

The dispute is an escalation in an ongoing struggle over press freedom under President Donald Trump, who frequently attacks mainstream media as “fake news.” In their lawsuit, the media outlets argue that the president’s attempt to ban them from the White House violates the First Amendment and their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Trump announced the ban on Sept. 18 in a social media post, citing what he described as unfavorable coverage of his administration. However, the news outlets said they only received formal notice of his decision via letters sent four days later.

Kelly made several comments during Thursday’s hearing that suggested the government faces an uphill climb on the due process issue. He noted that binding legal precedent in earlier cases that addressed the need for detailed, advance notice made it harder for the White House to win even if it provided a process after it imposed the ban.

The outlets are also arguing that the ban is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment’s speech protections. The judge pressed Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik about the fact that Trump didn’t originally identify national security concerns as a reason for the ban, yet the government was relying on that as one of two primary justifications; the other involves journalistic standards.

Velchik replied that in some cases, such as a fight during Trump’s first term over his move to ban travelers from certain Muslim-majority countries, courts had determined that public comments didn’t automatically outweigh the formal reasons that the president or agencies identify for a particular action.

Kelly also questioned Velchik about whether the media ban was similar to other cases that presented more “urgent” reasons for the government to act to protect national security. Kelly noted, for instance, that some of the news articles cited as reasons for revoking access weren’t written by reporters with White House badge access. This seemed like a “more attenuated” situation, he said.

Velchik replied that the president had wide discretion to make these types of determinations, and that the White House had no way of knowing how individual reporters obtained information and whether any credentialed reporters were involved.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., representing the media outlets, argued the administration had offered a “sham” process. On the First Amendment question, Boutrous said the Supreme Court in other instances had said that even false speech could be protected and warned about putting the government in charge of determining what is true.

Kelly, a Trump appointee, presided over a similar case in 2018, when CNN filed suit after the White House revoked the credentials of correspondent Jim Acosta. The judge ordered his access restored.

The Trump administration has broadly asserted that the president has an obligation to take steps to safeguard information related to national security and accused the outlets of publishing confidential information that poses a threat in formal letters sent after the ban was instituted.

Press access to the White House was restored in September after Kelly issued his initial temporary order, but the Trump administration has continued to clash with the outlets.

On Monday, the White House refused to allow Politico to travel on Air Force One with the president as part of the out-of-town travel pool, the small group of reporters who provide coverage of the president during trips. Trump also barred CNN from traveling with him to a college football game in Tennessee while the temporary lift on the ban was in place.

The case is Cable News Network v. Trump, 26-cv-3287, US District Court, District of Columbia .

With assistance from Georgia Fearn.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.