Judge orders White House to restore access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico
Judge Timothy Kelly temporarily blocked the White House ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico and ordered their press credentials restored for 14 days while their legal challenge proceeds. He said the outlets were likely to show they were denied due process and that the government had not supported its national-security justification with evidence.
Key points
- The order was temporary, not a final decision in the outlets’ lawsuit.
Evidence · 2 source statements
A District of Columbia court issued a temporary restraining order against the ban, meaning CNN, MS NOW and Politico must have their access restored for 14 days.
- The dispute centered on whether the outlets were excluded because of their coverage and whether the government had followed required procedures.
Evidence · 3 source statements
He said they were likely to succeed in showing that their White House press passes were revoked without due process.
The outlets argued they were singled out because of the content of their coverage, calling ban a blatant First Amendment violation.
- Reports also described a compliance problem: Kelly set a deadline for the administration to explain why the outlets’ access had not been restored.
Evidence · 2 source statements
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the lifting of U.S. President Donald Trump’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico and gave his administration an ultimatum to…
Kelly set a deadline of 12:30 p.m. local time to receive explanations for the failure to comply with the order
Who's involved
Timothy Kelly
He issued the temporary order and assessed the government’s justification for the ban.
Kelly’s preliminary view was that the outlets were likely to show they were denied due process; he also said the national-security rationale lacked factual support.
What they said · 2 source statements
Judge Timothy Kelly ruled CNN, Politico and MS NOW were "likely to succeed" in showing the White House had not exercised "adequate due process" in implementing the ban.
"The record lacks factual support for Defendants' contention that the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes will in fact protect national security or that national security will…
CNN, MS NOW and Politico
They were the outlets affected by the access ban and brought the legal challenge.
They argued they were targeted because of their reporting and that the ban discriminated based on viewpoint and violated the First Amendment.
What they said · 2 source statements
The outlets argued they were singled out because of the content of their coverage, calling ban a blatant First Amendment violation.
U.S. Department of Justice
Its lawyers defended the administration’s decision in court.
The department argued that White House access is a privilege, not a right, and that the president can decide who receives it. A lawyer also argued that letters sent to the outlets adequately explained the revocations.
What they said · 2 source statements
Lawyers for the Justice Department argued that White House press access is a privilege, not a right, and defended the president's authority to determine who receives access.
the Trump administration provided a sufficient explanation for the revocation of the press passes in letters sent to the news outlets on Tuesday.
Trump administration
The administration imposed the ban and defended the credential revocations.
The administration argued that the credentials had to be revoked for national-security reasons.
What they said · 1 source statement
Donald Trump
He imposed the ban and publicly characterized the outlets’ reporting.
Trump justified the exclusion by citing what he described as the outlets’ lack of truthfulness and negative coverage.
What they said · 1 source statement
Where accounts differ
Whether national security justified revoking the credentials
- The administration said national-security concerns required the credentials to be revoked.
Evidence · 1 source statement
- Kelly said the record did not support the claim that revocation protected national security or that restoring access during the case would endanger it.
Evidence · 1 source statement
"The record lacks factual support for Defendants' contention that the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes will in fact protect national security or that national security will…
The administration invoked national security; the judge found the evidence in the record did not support that justification at this stage.
What was reported
- The outlets had been barred from White House access the previous week.
Reported independently by 2: BBC News, Clarín
Evidence · 2 source statements
A judge has ordered the White House to immediately reinstate press access for three news organisations barred from the building last week by US President Donald Trump.
- Kelly issued a temporary restraining order requiring the administration to restore the outlets’ access and blocking enforcement of the ban for 14 days.
Reported independently by 3: BBC News, NDTV, Reuters
Evidence · 3 source statements
A District of Columbia court issued a temporary restraining order against the ban, meaning CNN, MS NOW and Politico must have their access restored for 14 days.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order on Thursday blocking the ban on the outlets, ruling that their access to the White House must be reinstated…
Kelly ordered the Trump administration to immediately return the outlets' press passes and blocked officials from enforcing the ban for 14 days.
- Kelly said the outlets were likely to show that their credentials had been revoked without adequate due process.
Reported independently by 2: BBC News, CBC News
Evidence · 2 source statements
Judge Timothy Kelly ruled CNN, Politico and MS NOW were "likely to succeed" in showing the White House had not exercised "adequate due process" in implementing the ban.
He said they were likely to succeed in showing that their White House press passes were revoked without due process.
- Kelly said the administration’s letters explaining the revocation came after the credentials were taken away and the lawsuit was filed.
One source: The Guardian
Evidence · 1 source statement
the letters were sent after the revocation occurred and the lawsuit was filed.
- Kelly said the record did not support the claim that revoking the credentials protected national security or that restoring them during the case would endanger it.
Reported independently by 2: BBC News, NDTV
Evidence · 2 source statements
"The record lacks factual support for Defendants' contention that the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes will in fact protect national security or that national security will…
The record lacks factual support for defendants' contention that the revocation of plaintiffs' hard passes will in fact protect national security or that national security will…
Still unclear
- The court had not yet decided the underlying case on its merits.
Not heard from
- The individual reporters whose credentials were revoked — They were directly affected by the ban, but the statements in these reports came from the outlets or their representatives rather than from the reporters themselves.