A federal judge on Oct. 13 extended an order blocking President Donald Trump’s administration from banning reporters for three news outlets from the White House. It is a pivotal development for the organizations as the extraordinary case — pitting the president against the press that covers him — makes its way through the legal system.
In a victory for news organizations at a time when tension between the White House and journalists is high, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were likely to succeed in their constitutional free-speech and due-process claims.
“Still,” he added in his late-night order, “no one should interpret the Court’s decision to suggest that President Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness in the media’s reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.”
But Kelly agreed with the plaintiffs that the national-security arguments came after the fact and were unsupported by the administration.
The judge also wrote that without a preliminary injunction the outlets “are likely to suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest tip in their favor.”
An email to the Justice Department, which is arguing the case on behalf of the administration, was not answered. The White House also did not respond to an email requesting comment.
Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the three news organizations, hailed the judge’s ruling.
“When the President issued his ‘ban on the free press,’ he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment,” Boutrous said in a statement. “The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The Court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on the free press’ for the foreseeable future.”
Judge says no warning given before banishment
Kelly, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, previously ordered the White House to restore the reporters’ “hard pass” press credentials while he weighed their claims. With that temporary order expiring yesterday, the judge issued a preliminary injunction that preserves the status quo indefinitely while the case is pending.
Kelly said that, “to put it mildly,” the White House didn’t give the plaintiffs any warning that they were in danger of losing their hard press passes before Trump’s Sept. 18 social media post about their bans.
The judge also said the impact of the White House ban goes far beyond a single reporter’s ability to do his or her job.
“The ban threatens to cut off all Plaintiffs’ access to the White House press area—a space open to many of their competitors—thereby restricting their ability to observe happenings there firsthand, immediately report on those activities, and try to engage with government officials,” the judge wrote.
Hard passes give journalists who regularly cover the White House longer-term access to its campus without their having to get permission ahead of time.
The government asked Kelly to suspend his own decision pending an appeal, but the judge said it didn’t justify that request. Kelly said the bans restricted a total of 78 reporters at the three news organizations.
Earlier judicial action against White House was only temporary
Trump provided no notice before announcing the bans in a Sept. 18 social media post, which criticized their reporting as “fake news.” Kelly temporarily blocked the bans on Sept. 24 at the request of the news outlets, which jointly filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C.
Attorneys for the outlets have described Trump’s move as “unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional” under the First and Fifth amendments. They argued that it’s illegal for Trump to punish the journalists because he doesn’t like the content of their reporting.
“The ban also inflicts an injury on all news media organizations — which now risk a similar fate if they engage in fact-based, independent reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable,” plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote.
Government lawyers argued that access to the White House is a privilege — not a right — and said the president can impose the bans to protect national security and to stem the spread of misinformation.
“The White House is the official residence and workplace of the President,” Justice Department attorneys wrote. “Presidents have had a relationship with the press since the beginning. They have long decided which journalists should receive privileged access, which has varied substantially from administration to administration.”
Associated Press reporter Rebecca Boone contributed to this story.
See also: The press and the president: High-risk chess with much at stake
The Free Speech Center newsletter offers a digest of First Amendment and news-media news every other week. Subscribe for free here: https://bit.ly/3kG9uiJ