A US judge indefinitely blocks Trump’s media ban, protecting CNN, MS NOW and Politico as their lawsuit challenging restrictions proceeds.
A federal judge in the United States has indefinitely extended an order preventing President Donald Trump’s administration from enforcing a ban on three media outlets, MS NOW, CNN and Politico, pending the outcome of a lawsuit challenging the decision.
Judge Timothy Kelly of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued the preliminary injunction late Tuesday, replacing an earlier temporary restraining order that had blocked the administration from enforcing the ban.
In his written opinion, Kelly said the three media organisations were likely to succeed in their claim that the administration violated their right to due process by revoking their White House press access without giving them an opportunity to challenge the decision.
The judge also ruled that the outlets were likely to succeed on two First Amendment claims alleging retaliation and discrimination based on their editorial viewpoints.
“President Trump’s own comments suggest that he intended the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes to alter their reporting on him,” Kelly wrote.
The lawsuit followed Trump’s September 18 announcement that he was banning the outlets because of their coverage of him and his administration.
In a Truth Social post, Trump accused the organisations of reporting “FICTION and LIES” about the president, his administration and the United States. He also said he had become “sick” of what he described as their cumulative stories.
The ban took effect on September 19, when journalists from the three outlets were denied access to the White House grounds and their permanent press passes were confiscated by Secret Service officers.
The outlets subsequently filed a lawsuit on September 21, describing the ban as an assault on press freedom and a violation of constitutional principles.
Kelly issued a temporary restraining order two days later, allowing journalists from the affected organisations to return to the White House on September 24 while the court considered the case.
In his latest ruling, the judge dismissed the Justice Department’s argument that national security concerns, alongside concerns about inaccurate reporting, justified the restrictions.
“There is no evidence in the record that President Trump made the decision to revoke Plaintiffs’ hard passes on national security grounds from the get-go, nor at any time has he directly stated that national security was the reason for his decision,” Kelly wrote.
He added that the national security argument appeared to be “merely a post-hoc justification for the decision” after the outlets filed their lawsuit.
However, Kelly clarified that the ruling did not mean the court had dismissed all concerns about media accuracy or the government’s responsibility to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.
The judge said the outlets were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, adding that the order would preserve the existing situation while the case proceeds.
The preliminary injunction does not constitute a final decision on the merits of the lawsuit and does not specifically require the White House to restore the outlets’ access to the Oval Office and Air Force One.
Theodore Boutrous Jr., a lawyer representing the media organisations, welcomed the ruling, saying the president had violated due process and the First Amendment.
Boutrous also argued that Trump had repeatedly acknowledged publicly that the ban was intended to punish reporting he disliked and pressure journalists to cover him in ways he preferred.
The lawyer described the harm caused by the ban to the media organisations, press freedom and the public as profound.
The Justice Department had defended the restrictions during a court hearing last Thursday. The ban reportedly resulted in 78 journalists having their White House hard passes revoked before Kelly ordered their restoration through the earlier temporary restraining order.
Trump had previously said he would appeal any decision by Kelly blocking the ban. The White House and the Justice Department had been asked to comment on the latest ruling.
