Judge orders continued White House access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters
|
The Facts
- Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued a preliminary injunction protecting White House access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico journalists.
- The preliminary injunction remains in effect while the news organizations' lawsuit proceeds.
- Trump announced the ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico on September 18.
- Kelly previously issued a temporary order restoring the outlets' access on September 24.
- Kelly found the outlets were likely to succeed on due-process claims over the revoked press credentials.
- Kelly found the outlets were likely to succeed on First Amendment claims.
Context
What does the injunction require?
The administration may not execute, implement or enforce its September 18 decision revoking the outlets' White House hard-pass credentials while the case continues. Anadolu Ajansı Newsweek
Did the judge decide the lawsuit's final outcome?
No. The preliminary injunction preserves the outlets' access during the litigation; the lawsuit challenging the ban remains pending. Washington Post CBS News Axios
Where Left and Right agree, and where they split
- Where Left and Right agree
- Kelly's injunction rests only on a finding that the outlets are likely to succeed on their claims, keeping their White House access in place while the underlying lawsuit remains unresolved.
- Where Left and Right split
- The left and the right split on whether the injunction protects press rights or preempts a president's authority.
- Why they won’t converge
- The disagreement is about trust in institutions — whether judicial review of press-access decisions checks executive overreach or wrongly substitutes a court's preliminary judgment for the president's authority, a divide the ruling's reasoning cannot settle.
How left and right read it
Press access to the people in power is precarious when it can be stripped at will, so a court finding the credentials were likely revoked in violation of due process and the First Amendment matters beyond these newsrooms. The injunction keeps access in place while the lawsuit proceeds, so the extraordinary ban remains unvindicated. Credentials should stay until the law, not preference, decides otherwise.
“Timothy Kelly, a district court judge, had on 24 September granted a 14-day reprieve for the news organizations, which six days earlier had been banned by the president in an extraordinary move” — The Guardian
Presidents should decide which outlets receive White House access without a court preempting that judgment before the case is resolved. Kelly's order rests only on a finding that the outlets are likely to succeed on due-process and First Amendment claims, yet it already forces the administration to keep their access in place while the lawsuit proceeds. That choice should stay the president's, not a preliminary injunction's to settle early.
“Past presidents have battled with the press, but Trump's campaign against the media has been unprecedented.” — The Telegraph
The injunction keeps the ban on hold while the lawsuit plays out, turning the fight into who decides: a judge or the president.
The receipts — 96 sources
Wire services (3)
Independent coverage (93)
The news, read by both sides.
The day’s biggest stories in one short brief, built to show both sides and the competing values behind the headlines. Free in your inbox.