“Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were allowed back into the White House on Thursday roughly 10 hours after a federal judge temporarily reinstated their press credentials. But the legal fight over President Donald Trump’s attempt to ban the three outlets from the grounds may continue over the next few weeks at least. Judge”, — write on: www.cnn.com
Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were allowed back into the White House on Thursday roughly 10 hours after a federal judge temporarily reinstated their press credentials.
But the legal fight over President Donald Trump’s attempt to ban the three outlets from the grounds may continue over the next few weeks at least.
Judge Timothy Kelly’s 1 a.m. ET temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s ban on the three outlets only is scheduled to last 14 days.
Kelly will entertain a request from the media organizations to issue a longer-term order. Questions remain about the ability to of CNN, MS NOW and Politico to participate in other aspects of covering the president and the status of the White House pool.
Meanwhile, Trump’s Justice Department has said in court it wants to overturn a 50-year-old precedent about White House press access.
Here’s what to know:
For now, the case stays before Judge Kelly.
His next step is to decide whether there’s reason and evidence enough for a similar court order – called a preliminary injunction – restoring press access that would stay in place indefinitely as the case plays out.
Kelly is giving the outlets until Monday to file the preliminary injunction request. The Trump administration must respond by Friday, October 2, with a final written submission from the media plaintiffs due by Monday, October 5.
The judge, who was appointed by Trump during in his first term, said he would schedule a hearing at a later date, but he planned to rule “expeditiously.” Kelly’s current court order restoring the outlets’ access expires on October 8.
Trump has publicly indicated he plans to appeal rulings against him – but procedurally, it’s not possible until the judge decides on the preliminary injunction request.
For Kelly, the Justice Department will be able to build out its arguments in court, or the Trump administration could make other moves around press access at the White House, especially for CNN, MS NOW and Politico.
At the same time, lawyers for the three major outlets are likely to continue documenting the access (or lack of access) that their journalists have to the White House grounds and for covering Trump, arguing to Kelly that they should be able to continue reporting from the White House because of foundational Constitutional protections, including the First Amendment.
Trump can, however, back down and end the court proceeding at any time. That is how prior attempts to ban suspended individual White House press pass holders, including CNN’s Jim Acosta in 2018, ended.
Kelly has kept the door open for more facts and evidence to come from the White House, especially as the administration tries to argue that letting the three news outlets into the building puts national security at risk.
At a hearing Wednesday, a DOJ attorney pointed to how a relevant precedent contemplated the possibility that the administration could take action against a journalist who had mooned the president on the White House grounds.
CNN’s Dana Bash lays out the stakes of Trump’s White House media ban
0:53
• Source:
CNN
CNN’s Dana Bash lays out the stakes of Trump’s White House media ban
0:53
“If that’s the case with a specific incident in the Rose Garden, the president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security,” DOJ attorney Michael Velchik said.
Kelly so far has batted down the idea that national security concerns justified the ban, at least with the current examples and set of facts the White House has presented in court.
The judge’s first reason: Trump himself announced he was banning the three news outlets from the White House last Friday because of “alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting.” The president made no mention of national security for days.
“The Court is skeptical – at least on this record – that Defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes,” Kelly wrote.
The administration’s later explanations about the ban after CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued were “ambiguous” on whether they actually were about national security risks, Kelly said.
The judge also noted that the news articles the White House said were risky – about the plans for Trump’s East Wing ballroom, the Iran War, and other topics – are “routine.”
None created such a national security emergency or were so extraordinary that the White House passes needed to be revoked – say, when international narcotics traffickers are moving loot – Kelly said.
Several of the stories weren’t even written by White House-credentialed reporters, and the credential for one CNN reporter was renewed months after she wrote a story the administration now flags as objectionable, the judge added.
And finally, on the national security concerns, the judge noted that it was a Pentagon official the administration relied on in court so far to describe the risk. That public relations official, sitting outside the White House, wouldn’t know how reporters work within the White House.
Trump administration officials “afford no reason to believe that the reporters’ possession of the hard pass was integral to the stories identified,” Kelly wrote.
As the case proceeds, however, the Trump administration can continue to raise its national security concerns and provide additional evidence and examples to the judge.
Trump has already signaled that backing down after an initial loss may not be his administration’s approach this time. Earlier this week, the president claimed that Kelly – whom he appointed to the federal bench nine years ago – would likely rule against him, and vowed to appeal.
Appeals may be necessary if Trump wants to win in court. Kelly in his order on Thursday said he is required to follow 50-year-old case law that says the White House can’t revoke press credentials without due process. A three-judge panel at the appeals court above Kelly, the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals, also can’t overturn the due process requirements set in prior cases.