Judge Kelly: White House Press Ban Blocked, Permanent Injunction Likely

• U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly is expected to permanently order the White House to restore press access for CNN, Politico, and MS Now reporters.
• The judge found little evidence that national security, as claimed by the Justice Department, was the actual motivation for the ban.
• The news outlets argued the ban was "textbook retaliation" for critical coverage, a claim supported by President Trump's own "fake news" comments.
• Judge Kelly's decision is guided by D.C. Circuit precedents *Sherrill v. Knight* and *Karem v. Trump*, requiring reasonable restrictions and due process for White House press access.
• The ruling highlights judicial skepticism towards executive branch national security claims when they appear to contradict public statements or lack sufficient evidence.

This ruling by Judge Timothy Kelly underscores a judicial reluctance to accept unsubstantiated claims of national security, particularly when they appear to mask other motivations.

A federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump appears poised to issue a permanent injunction against the White House, compelling it to reinstate press credentials for reporters from CNN, Politico, and MS Now. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who previously issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the ban on September 24, indicated his strong inclination to make that order permanent. The initial TRO, which was set to expire on Thursday, has been extended until Tuesday due to a scheduling conflict, allowing the court more time to finalize its decision in this significant Trump administration media access lawsuit.

During the proceedings, the Justice Department, represented solely by attorney Michael Velchik, contended that the affected news outlets had received ample prior notice regarding potential violations of journalistic standards, such as publishing sensitive or classified information. Velchik argued that these outlets had the opportunity to rebut such assertions but chose not to. He drew a parallel between the president's authority to revoke press access and the government's ability to summarily dismiss an employee or revoke a passport for national security threats, even suggesting hypothetically that without such power, entities like CNN could publish nuclear launch codes or a WikiLeaks publisher might gain access to classified data by posing as press.

However, Judge Kelly remained unconvinced by these arguments, particularly the assertion of an urgent national security threat. He noted that the specific facts presented in the case did not indicate a "hair-on-fire" need to protect national security. The judge also highlighted the president's own public statements, which he found undermined the government's position. Judge Timothy Kelly pointed out the "unusual situation" where a decision-maker publicly states one reason for an action, only for the government to present a different justification in court. Velchik attempted to cite *Trump v. Hawaii*, a 2018 Supreme Court case upholding a travel ban, as a comparable precedent, arguing that national security concerns and journalistic standards were "twin" and interconnected issues.

The court's decision is largely guided by established D.C. Circuit precedent, specifically *Sherrill v. Knight* and *Karem v. Trump*, which define the White House as a nonpublic forum. Under these precedents, any restriction on First Amendment rights, including White House press access, must be reasonable and consistent with due process. Velchik, however, indicated plans to challenge these foundational cases on appeal, arguing they were wrongly decided. This legal framework underscores the importance of due process protections for journalists seeking White House press access First Amendment rights.

This ruling by Judge Timothy Kelly underscores a judicial reluctance to accept unsubstantiated claims of national security, particularly when they appear to mask other motivations. The judge's explicit finding of "little evidence" that national security was the actual reason for the CNN Politico MS Now ban, coupled with his observation that the president's own public comments contradicted the government's court arguments, signals a significant check on executive power. This skepticism is particularly relevant given the Trump administration's history of invoking national security to justify actions seemingly unrelated to genuine threats, such as the use of the White House ballroom or the summary deportation of 137 Venezuelan migrants alleged to be Tren de Aragua gang members based on what was described as flimsy evidence.

While federal courts typically grant deference to the executive branch on matters of national security, this case demonstrates that such deference is not absolute, especially when First Amendment and due process concerns are at stake. The potential permanent injunction against the ban reinforces the principle that restrictions on press credentials must be grounded in legitimate, verifiable concerns and adhere to established legal standards. This outcome serves as a crucial reminder that even in a nonpublic forum like the White House, the government's ability to control media access is not unfettered and must withstand judicial scrutiny, particularly when allegations of retaliation or lack of due process arise, effectively blocking the White House press ban.

This ruling reinforces First Amendment and due process protections for journalists seeking White House access, highlighting judicial skepticism towards unsubstantiated national security claims. Lawyers advising media clients should note the court's reliance on D.C. Circuit precedent and its potential use in challenging future executive actions restricting press credentials.

Source: Original reporting via CN