Judge Orders White House to Restore Press Access
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered the Trump administration early Thursday to immediately restore White House press credentials for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico, ruling that the administration’s abrupt ban was likely unconstitutional. Within hours, the three news outlets told the court the White House had already begun defying that order, with some reporters again being turned away and having their hard passes confiscated.
U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, issued an eight-page temporary restraining order granting the three outlets 14 days of relief, directing White House representatives to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” the press passes. The ruling marked a significant legal defeat for the administration’s escalating conflict with the press corps.
The Ruling
According to The Guardian, Kelly grounded his decision primarily in procedural due process, finding the outlets were “likely to succeed” in showing that their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate process.
“Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed in showing that their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process,” Kelly wrote. “The ‘general rule’ is that ‘individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them’ of a constitutionally protected interest.”
Kelly also rejected the administration’s national-security justification, writing that “the record lacks factual support for Defendants’ contention that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes will in fact protect national security.” He noted that President Donald Trump, when announcing the ban, had focused instead on “the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity” of the outlets’ reporting rather than any security concern.
CNBC reported that Kelly found the process deficient on multiple counts: the outlets received no advance notice, no meaningful opportunity to be heard, and no pre-existing articulated standards. A White House letter outlining its complaints was, the judge said, “so vague it hardly does the trick.”
How the Dispute Unfolded
The conflict escalated quickly. Trump announced the ban on Friday, September 18, barring the three outlets from covering White House events and citing their “constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS.” Credentials were physically revoked the following day.
On Monday, the three outlets filed a joint lawsuit against Trump, White House communications director Steven Cheung, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Secret Service Director Sean Curran, alleging First Amendment and Fifth Amendment violations. That same day, the five major broadcast networks suspended their shared pool video service in a show of solidarity — meaning several presidential events, including Trump’s address to the United Nations General Assembly, drew no pooled video coverage.
Kelly held an emergency hearing on Wednesday and appeared skeptical of the administration’s arguments. The Justice Department, in a Tuesday filing, had argued that White House access is a “privilege,” not a right.
Defiance Alleged
Hours after the overnight order, the relief it promised appeared to falter. According to TIME, the three outlets filed an emergency request for a hearing, arguing the White House had “repeatedly violated” the court’s order.
“This morning, journalists from each of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico attempted to enter the White House and were turned away, and Secret Service agents confiscated the hard pass of journalists whose hard passes had not previously been confiscated,” the outlets wrote in the filing.
Kelly gave the administration until 12:30 p.m. ET to respond. The New York Post reported that CNN correspondent Betsy Klein, MS NOW reporter Laura Barrón-López and an unidentified Politico journalist were denied entry at a Secret Service checkpoint — though at least one producer from each of CNN and MS NOW was allowed inside, underscoring the erratic application of the policy.
Reaction and Context
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., the attorney representing the three outlets, praised the ruling. “This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law,” he said. “We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action.”
Daniel Burnett, a spokesman for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, framed the decision as a reaffirmation of settled law. “The president can’t ban reporters from the White House because he doesn’t like the stories they write,” he said, adding that “the First Amendment freedom to write ‘negative stories’ about our elected leaders is what’s right with America, not what’s ‘wrong’ with it.”
The case echoes a 2018 episode in which Trump revoked then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press credentials after a tense news conference exchange. A court — notably, Kelly — ordered the White House to reinstate Acosta’s pass, establishing precedent for the current dispute.
What’s Next
A hearing for a preliminary injunction will be expedited within the 14-day window, and the court is expected to set a schedule for further briefing. Kelly noted that temporary restraining orders are “generally unappealable,” though Trump has signaled the White House will contest any adverse ruling — writing on Truth Social that the administration would “go for appeal.”
If the White House continues to deny access, the outlets are likely to ask the court to enforce its order — a step that could escalate the confrontation between the judiciary and the executive branch. Whether the administration complies, and what standards it might formally promulgate going forward, remain open questions at the center of one of the most direct tests of press freedom in recent memory.