Trump appeals ruling allowing CNN, Politico and MS NOW into White House press areas
Developed over time first seen 1 day ago
Donald Trump has appealed a judge’s ruling that blocks his administration from excluding CNN, Politico and MS NOW journalists from White House press areas. The appeal challenges an injunction that lets the outlets’ staff keep their press passes while their lawsuit proceeds.
Trump announced the ban on 18 September, and the three outlets sued the following Monday. US District Judge Timothy Kelly first issued a temporary restraining order, then ruled that the organisations were likely to succeed in arguing that the ban violated their due process and First Amendment rights. The White House called the ruling “misguided”; the injunction generally remains in force until a trial or a contrary decision by an appeals court.
- Trump is appealing the ruling protecting three outlets’ White House access.
- The judge found their constitutional claims likely to succeed.
- The injunction remains in force while the case proceeds.
New here? Start with this
White House hard passes allow journalists to enter parts of the complex regularly to cover the US president and administration. Decisions about who can hold them affect which reporters can ask questions and report from those areas.
CNN, Politico and MS NOW are US news organisations. They sued after the administration announced it would bar their staff from White House press areas. The dispute concerns whether the government can restrict journalists’ access in this way and what protections the US Constitution provides to the press.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The administration can argue that access to White House press areas is not unlimited and that officials need discretion to manage facilities and set workable access rules. It may contend that the appeal should clarify how courts balance that discretion against journalists’ rights, and that the ban can be defended under the administration’s stated rationale, subject to judicial review.
The case against
The outlets can argue that excluding particular news organisations from routine White House access because of their coverage or reporting undermines press freedom and the public’s ability to scrutinise government. The judge’s finding that they were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims supports keeping their journalists’ access in place while the case is decided.
Full account
Donald Trump has filed a notice of appeal against a federal judge’s decision to block his administration from excluding CNN, Politico and MS NOW journalists from White House press areas. The appeal, lodged by Justice Department lawyers with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, challenges a preliminary injunction issued by US District Judge Timothy Kelly.
Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, ruled that the three news organisations were likely to succeed in arguing that the restrictions breached their constitutional rights. His decision covers both due process protections and the First Amendment. It keeps the journalists’ White House credentials in place while the outlets’ lawsuit proceeds. A preliminary injunction generally remains in effect until the case is resolved or an appeal court changes the order.
The dispute began after Trump announced the exclusion in a social media post on 18 September, criticising the organisations’ coverage. White House officials then deactivated or took reporters’ credentials. The outlets and three journalists sued, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. Kelly first issued a temporary restraining order on 24 September; his injunction came shortly before that order was due to expire. The administration had also asked him to pause the injunction during an appeal, but, according to the Associated Press, he declined.
The White House defended its control over press access and said the journalists could report from outside. An official described Kelly’s decision as misguided and said the administration would appeal. The outlets’ lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr., welcomed the injunction, saying it preserved access and protected constitutional rights. The administration has argued that White House credentials are a privilege and that the president may decide which journalists receive them.
Where outlets differ
The reports describe the timing and status of the appeal differently: one says Trump filed a notice of appeal on Wednesday, while the other reports that a White House official confirmed the administration intended to appeal. They otherwise agree that an appeal was planned or under way.
The second report gives more detail on Kelly’s earlier 24 September order, the administration’s request to pause the injunction, the journalists’ lawsuit and the outlets’ lawyer’s response. The first focuses more on the filing and the sequence of orders, and quotes the judge’s finding that the outlets were likely to prevail on due process and First Amendment claims.
The second report attributes some details of the ruling to the Associated Press, including Kelly’s view that the restrictions appeared tied to objections to the outlets’ coverage rather than national security concerns. The first does not include that explanation. The reports also use different formulations for the scope of the exclusion: the first refers to a ban from White House grounds, while the second describes a ban on reporters and the loss of press credentials.
More coverage
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Deadline as “Donald Trump To Appeal Judge’s Ruling That Sidelined White House Ban On CNN, Politico And MS NOW”.