Judge Kelly: White House Press Access Order Reinstates CNN, MS NOW, Politico

• A federal judge mandated the White House restore press access for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico early Thursday morning.
• The order followed the White House's ban of the outlets last Saturday, with President Trump citing "FICTION and LIES" in their reporting.
• U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who previously handled the Jim Acosta press-pass case, issued a 14-day temporary restraining order.
• Judge Kelly found the administration provided no support for its claims that the disputed stories contained classified information or damaged national security.
• Despite the judicial order, CNN and MS NOW were subsequently denied entry to a state dinner for Chinese President Xi Jinping later that Thursday.

In his ruling, the judge specifically pointed out that the administration "provided no support for its assertion that any of the disputed stories contained classified information or damaged national security."

A federal judge issued an order early Thursday morning, compelling the White House to reinstate press access for three prominent media organizations: CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. This judicial directive came in response to the White House's decision the previous Saturday to ban these outlets. President Trump had justified the exclusion by stating that "Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES."

However, the immediate aftermath of the court's ruling saw continued friction regarding press access. By Thursday evening, CNN reported that it had been turned away from a state dinner hosted for Chinese President Xi Jinping. Notably, Chinese state media representatives were granted entry to the event, while both CNN and MS NOW were denied access, despite the judge's earlier order. This incident highlighted an ongoing dispute over the extent of White House press access.

The media organizations, including CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, initiated legal action against the White House following their ban. They engaged the legal services of Gibson Dunn, a firm with a history of success in similar press access disputes. In response to the lawsuit, the White House presented what was described as a series of "talking points" rather than substantial legal arguments or case law to support its position.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, notably the same jurist who handled the Jim Acosta press-pass case in 2018, presided over the current proceedings and was reportedly unimpressed by the administration's defense. Judge Kelly issued a 14-day temporary restraining order. In his ruling, the judge specifically pointed out that the administration "provided no support for its assertion that any of the disputed stories contained classified information or damaged national security." He further observed that some of the reporting that had angered President Trump was "months or years old," suggesting a lack of immediate justification for the ban.

Despite the temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, the White House maintained its stance on certain access limitations. Following the denial of entry for CNN and MS NOW to the state dinner, the administration offered an explanation, stating, "This is a pre-credentialed event. Contrary to what the Fake News wants to believe, they don’t just get to have free rein into every part of the White House." This statement suggests a continued assertion of executive discretion over specific event access, even in the face of a broader judicial mandate concerning general press credentials.

This ongoing tension between the White House and media organizations, particularly concerning press access, raises significant First Amendment press freedom questions. The judiciary's involvement, exemplified by Judge Kelly's White House press access order, serves as a critical check on executive power. The precedent set by cases like the Jim Acosta press pass dispute and this current Gibson Dunn press access lawsuit reinforces the principle that government entities must demonstrate compelling reasons for restricting media access, especially when such restrictions could be perceived as arbitrary or retaliatory. The court's demand for evidence beyond mere "talking points" highlights the high bar for justifying limitations on the press.

Lawyers advising media organizations or government entities on press relations and access policies should note this judicial precedent. It reinforces that government bodies, including the White House, face significant legal challenges and potential First Amendment violations when arbitrarily restricting media access without clear, justifiable cause.

Source: Original reporting via news coverage