CNN, MS NOW, Politico due back in court to fight White House ban

Attorneys representing CNN, MS NOW, and Politico are returning to a Washington federal courtroom to seek an extended injunction against an administration order barring their correspondents from the White House complex.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who previously halted the restrictions through a temporary restraining order, is weighing whether to grant a preliminary injunction while the broader case moves forward. The initial order, which forced the administration to restore press passes for the affected reporters, was scheduled to lapse on Thursday.

The legal standoff began after President Donald Trump used a social media announcement on Truth Social to institute the bans, citing unfavorable coverage and accusing the organizations of spreading false news. Following the directive, Secret Service personnel confiscated credentials from journalists representing the three outlets as they attempted to enter the White House.

In a joint legal challenge initiated on September 21, the media organizations argued that the measure infringed upon First Amendment protections and bypassed constitutional due process. Judge Kelly initially favored the news outlets, noting that correspondents received neither prior warning that their past work could result in revoked credentials nor an avenue to contest the decision. The judge also observed that the stories flagged by officials as justification were standard press pieces, some written months earlier.

Although reporters regained entry to the White House grounds within half a day of the judge's ruling, legal counsel noted that the administration has continued to exclude CNN and Politico from shared press pool assignments, including events in the Oval Office and travel aboard Air Force One.

In formal court submissions, media attorney Ted Boutrous stated that the White House's rationale has continuously shifted from unclear decorum expectations to unfounded national security claims. The plaintiffs contend that the restrictions serve as an unlawful retaliatory action intended to penalize critical reporting and intimidate the press corps as a whole.

Conversely, the Department of Justice has asked the court to uphold the exclusions, contending that the presidency possesses authority to regulate press presence to protect sensitive information and enforce professional decorum. Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik asserted in court documents that entry to executive grounds remains a privilege rather than an absolute legal right. Velchik added that correspondence sent to the outlets outlining grievances regarding articles on subjects such as military conflicts and political events satisfied procedural requirements, even though the newsrooms declined to answer those notices by a specified deadline.

President Trump has maintained his criticism of the targeted outlets, remarking to reporters and in an interview with Time magazine that his actions stem from what he described as continuous negative coverage of his presidency. The court is expected to rule on whether the protections will remain in place as litigation continues.