Judge questions process used to revoke White House press credentials
At a September 23 hearing on CNN, MS NOW and Politico’s request to restore their White House access, Judge Timothy Kelly questioned whether the administration had provided clear rules and timely notice before revoking their credentials. He ended the hearing without ruling; the outlets and the Justice Department defended opposing views of the ban’s legality.
Key points
- Kelly focused on whether journalists were entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before their credentials were revoked.
Evidence · 3 source statements
before a journalist’s White House hard pass was suspended or revoked, that the journalist was entitled to pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard
- The dispute centered on whether the ban punished the outlets for their reporting and violated constitutional protections, or whether the White House could set its own access conditions.
Evidence · 4 source statements
The outlets argued they were singled out because of the content of their coverage — in other words, viewpoint discrimination
called the ban a “blatant violation” of the First Amendment.
Who's involved
Timothy Kelly
He was the judge hearing the outlets’ emergency request.
Kelly cited due-process protections requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard before a journalist’s White House press pass is suspended or revoked, and questioned whether the administration had met those obligations.
What they said · 3 source statements
before a journalist’s White House hard pass was suspended or revoked, that the journalist was entitled to pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard
two precedents from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit made clear that journalists are entitled to due process before their White House press passes can…
U.S. Department of Justice
The department defended the administration’s access ban in court.
The department argued that the president can set conditions for White House access, that a press credential is a privilege rather than a right, and that the ban was not viewpoint discrimination.
What they said · 4 source statements
CNN, MS NOW and Politico
The outlets sued after their White House credentials were revoked.
They argued that the ban retaliated against their coverage and discriminated based on viewpoint, violated the First Amendment, and was imposed without prior notice or a meaningful chance to challenge it.
What they said · 4 source statements
The outlets argued they were singled out because of the content of their coverage — in other words, viewpoint discrimination
called the ban a “blatant violation” of the First Amendment.
What was reported
- Judge Timothy Kelly held a hearing on September 23 on the three outlets’ emergency request for a temporary restraining order restoring their press access.
Reported independently by 3: Reuters, The Hindu, The New York Times
Evidence · 3 source statements
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who blocked Mr. Trump from banning a CNN reporter during his first presidency, scheduled a Wednesday (September 23) hearing on the outlets’…
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly — who Mr. Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist's access restored in a similar case in 2018 — heard arguments on Wednesday…
- Kelly questioned whether the administration had established clear rules and given timely notice before removing the press passes.
Reported independently by 2: CNN, Clarín
Evidence · 2 source statements
- Kelly did not issue a ruling during the hearing and said he would consider the arguments.
Reported independently by 3: Clarín, The Hindu, The New York Times
Evidence · 3 source statements
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly — who Mr. Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist's access restored in a similar case in 2018 — heard arguments on Wednesday…
Still unclear
- The accounts covered here do not state the court’s eventual decision on the outlets’ request.
Not heard from
- Donald Trump — His administration’s revocation of the credentials was challenged, but no statement from Trump himself appears in these accounts.