A federal judge ordered President Trump’s White House to let CNN, MS NOW, and Politico back in less than a week after he banned them, ruling the reporters never got a fair chance to fight the punishment.
Story Snapshot
- Trump banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House on September 18, saying they reported “FICTION and LIES.”
- All three outlets sued days later, saying the ban broke their First Amendment and due process rights.
- U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the White House to restore their press badges early Thursday, September 24.
- The White House argued access is a “privilege,” not a right, and said the outlets broke conduct rules.
- Kelly ruled on a similar case against CNN reporter Jim Acosta back in 2018.
Trump Announces the Ban Over “Fake News”
President Trump posted on Truth Social on September 18 that he was banning the three outlets “effective immediately.” He said media outlets “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES” about him, and warned “Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow”. Reporters from all three outlets were turned away from the White House grounds within hours of the post.
Rival networks pushed back fast. Several other outlets refused to take part in the shared press pool that normally covers the president, saying they would not benefit from a ban aimed at their competitors. The move showed that even news organizations that often compete with each other agreed this fight was bigger than one network’s grudge with the president.
Outlets Sue, Calling the Ban Unconstitutional
CNN, MS NOW, and Politico jointly sued Trump and administration officials on September 21 in federal court in Washington, D.C. Their lawsuit claimed the ban violated their rights to free speech and a free press under the First Amendment. The outlets asked for an emergency order forcing the White House to immediately restore their reporters’ credentials while the case played out.
The Justice Department fought back in a court filing, saying Trump had determined the three outlets “breached standards of conduct.” The filing accused them of “trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information.” Officials described White House access as a “privilege” the president can grant or take away.
Judge Cites Due Process, Not Politics
Judge Kelly, a Trump appointee, held an emergency hearing on September 23 and appeared skeptical of the government’s defense. In the early morning hours of September 24, he ordered the administration to temporarily reinstate the press badges. His written opinion rested mainly on the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, finding the outlets were likely denied fair notice and a chance to respond before losing access.
The ruling echoed a legal standard set in 1977, when a federal appeals court ruled the White House cannot deny press passes arbitrarily once it opens its doors to reporters. Any denial needs clear, specific standards applied evenly. That decades-old case has guided White House credential fights ever since, regardless of which party controls the Oval Office.
History Repeats: The 2018 Acosta Case
Kelly is no stranger to this exact fight. In 2018, during Trump’s first term, he ordered the White House to restore CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass after it was pulled following a contentious news conference. Kelly found then that the White House failed to give Acosta fair notice or a written explanation before yanking his credential.
That 2018 precedent left the White House with a playbook: give reporters clear notice and a real chance to respond before cutting off access. Legal experts note the administration’s new “national security” and “verifiable falsehoods” rationale may eventually hold up if paired with proper process, but the rushed rollout this time skipped that step entirely.
What Comes Next
The restored access is temporary while the underlying lawsuit continues. Trump has not ruled out banning additional outlets, and the Justice Department is expected to keep defending its authority to police White House conduct standards. For now, reporters from all three outlets are back inside the building, and the legal fight over how far a president can go in punishing unfavorable coverage remains unsettled.
Sources:
npr.org, cnbc.com, reuters.com, nytimes.com, time.com, apnews.com, inforrm.org, thehill.com, stevevladeck.com
