Donald Trump faces court setback as judge orders return of CNN, MS NOW, Politico journalists

A US federal judge has ordered the Donald Trump administration to restore White House access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico, finding that the ban imposed on the three news organisations was likely unconstitutional.

US District Judge Timothy Kelly issued the order on Thursday after the three media organisations challenged the administration in federal court. The outlets argued that removing their access violated their First Amendment protections and Fifth Amendment due-process rights.

The ruling requires the affected journalists' White House access and press credentials to be restored. Kelly's decision came less than a week after Trump announced that the three organisations would be barred from the White House over what he described as “FICTION and LIES” in their reporting.

Why Trump barred the three news organisations

Trump announced the ban on September 18, saying CNN, MS NOW and Politico should not be allowed to “constantly write or report FICTION and LIES” while covering his presidency.

The following day, journalists from the three organisations were denied entry to the White House, while their press badges were deactivated or confiscated. CNN reporter Betsy Klein, MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner and Politico reporter Cheyenne Haslett were among those affected.

The organisations subsequently sued Trump and senior administration officials, arguing that they had been punished because of their reporting. Their lawsuit sought immediate restoration of access and argued that the administration's action violated constitutional protections for freedom of speech and the press.

The administration defended the restrictions in court by arguing that the outlets had failed to meet standards of professionalism and decorum and had published sensitive or classified information. The Justice Department also invoked national security concerns and maintained that access to the White House is a privilege rather than a constitutional right.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico rejected that reasoning, maintaining that the ban amounted to retaliation for their reporting. They relied on First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and the press, as well as Fifth Amendment guarantees of due process.

Judge focuses on due process

The dispute turned significantly on whether the administration followed the required process before removing the journalists' access.

At a hearing on Wednesday, Kelly questioned the government's position and pointed to earlier court decisions establishing that journalists are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge the withdrawal of their White House access.

The administration's letters setting out its objections were sent only after the journalists' credentials had already been revoked. Kelly said the government had not provided the required opportunity to respond before taking away the journalists' access.

Kelly cited earlier cases, including Sherrill v. Knight from 1977 and Karem v. Trump from 2022, in considering the due-process requirements surrounding the withdrawal of press access. Those precedents recognise that the government must provide appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard before removing a journalist's constitutionally protected access.

The judge's ruling is notable because Kelly himself was appointed to the federal bench by Trump during the president's first term. In 2018, Kelly ordered the White House to restore the press credentials of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after the administration revoked them following a confrontation between Acosta and Trump.

What the 1977 White House press case established

The present dispute also draws on Sherrill v. Knight, a landmark 1977 case concerning White House press access.

The legal principle arising from that case is not that every journalist must be given access to every White House facility or event. Rather, when the government opens press facilities to journalists, it cannot selectively exclude reporters simply because of their viewpoint and must follow appropriate procedures when access is withdrawn.

That principle has become central to the legal challenge brought by CNN, MS NOW and Politico.

The wider Trump-media confrontation

The dispute has also disrupted the White House press pool.

Major television networks suspended coverage of Trump earlier this week in solidarity with CNN after the network was removed from the White House television pool. The five networks normally rotate responsibility for producing footage of presidential events and distribute that feed to other broadcasters and news organisations.

With the usual pool arrangement disrupted, some presidential events were left without the standard shared television coverage.

The impact was particularly visible during Trump's launch of a new White House helipad on Monday. Without the regular television pool, the White House livestream carried footage of Trump speaking while helicopter noise repeatedly drowned out his remarks.

The White House has also launched “Trump TV”, a 24-hour online streaming service carrying videos, speeches and other material from the president and his administration. The move came amid the escalating dispute with CNN, MS NOW and Politico.

The confrontation has broader implications for the relationship between the Trump administration and the press. Before the latest ban, the administration had already faced legal disputes over restrictions on journalists, including its exclusion of Associated Press reporters and the earlier case involving CNN's Jim Acosta.

For now, Kelly's order restores access while the legal dispute continues. The ruling does not resolve all of the constitutional claims raised by the three organisations, but it prevents the administration from maintaining the immediate exclusion that triggered the lawsuit.