Federal Judge Blocks White House Ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico Press Access
A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration's revocation of hard press passes for three news outlets, ruling that the ban likely violated the First and Fifth Amendments.
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from barring journalists from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from accessing the White House, delivering a significant legal rebuke to an effort that the court found likely violated constitutional protections for free speech and due process.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, granted a preliminary injunction on Tuesday that suspends the revocation of the three news organizations' hard press passes. In a 26-page decision, Kelly concluded that the administration's action likely amounted to viewpoint-based retaliation and that the outlets were not given adequate notice or a meaningful chance to respond before their credentials were stripped.
The injunction remains in effect indefinitely while the litigation proceeds, ensuring that reporters from the three outlets retain access to White House grounds and press facilities. The ruling extends temporary relief granted earlier in the month, when the court first paused the ban to allow for fuller consideration of the constitutional claims.
At the heart of the decision is the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press. Kelly wrote that revoking the hard passes was «the sort of action that would deter a reasonable reporter or news organization from publishing stories» the president objects to. The court emphasized that White House access is critical to how, whether, and to what extent these organizations can perform their newsgathering functions, and that cutting off that access effectively punished the outlets for their coverage.
The judge also found a likely Fifth Amendment due process violation. The news organizations were not provided adequate notice that their specific reporting could lead to the loss of their credentials, nor were they given a meaningful opportunity to contest the allegations before their access was revoked. That procedural deficiency formed a central part of the legal basis for the earlier temporary relief, which the preliminary injunction now formalizes for the duration of the case.
The dispute underscores long-running tensions between the executive branch and the press over access to the White House and the president's ability to shape the terms of coverage. Hard passes allow journalists to move through the White House complex without daily escort, making them essential for routine reporting on the administration. Their revocation for specific outlets is rare and has historically drawn legal challenges on First Amendment grounds.
By granting the preliminary injunction, Kelly signaled that the news organizations are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The administration may still appeal the ruling or seek to narrow its scope, but for now the three outlets can continue covering the White House alongside other credentialed press corps members.
The case is expected to proceed through the federal courts, where the government will have to justify the credential revocations under a legal standard that heavily favors press access. The outcome could set a precedent for how far the executive branch can go in restricting journalists' access based on the content of their reporting.
7
