Judge Kelly: Trump Press Ban Injunction Stands, DOJ Faces 'Uphill Climb'

• U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly appears poised to maintain his order blocking a press ban against CNN, MS NOW, and Politico for the long term.
• The Justice Department's effort to justify the ban as a national security measure is facing significant judicial skepticism, with Judge Kelly calling it "an uphill climb."
• President Trump had previously stated the ban was based on his disapproval of the targeted outlets' coverage.
• Judge Kelly, a Trump appointee, has reportedly been a source of lament for the president regarding his judicial decisions.

The court's skepticism towards national security pretexts for content-based restrictions sets a significant precedent for challenging similar governmental attempts to control media.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly has signaled a strong intent to uphold his existing order, which blocks the administration's ban on specific media outlets, indicating a long-term commitment to the injunction. The judge's stance, articulated during a recent hearing, suggests that the prohibition targeting CNN, MS NOW, and Politico is unlikely to be reinstated. This development comes despite Judge Kelly being an appointee of President Trump, a fact the president himself has reportedly lamented since the judge's initial appointment.

During the hearing, the Justice Department attempted to reframe the administration's press ban, presenting it as a measure necessary for national security. However, this revised justification met with considerable skepticism from Judge Kelly. The judge explicitly stated that the DOJ's effort to recast the ban in this manner was facing "an uphill climb," indicating a significant challenge for the government to persuade the court.

This judicial skepticism is particularly notable given President Trump's previously stated rationale for the ban. The president had publicly attributed the restrictions on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico to his disapproval of their coverage, rather than any national security concerns. The court's apparent reluctance to accept a post-hoc national security pretext, especially when contrasted with the original, content-based justification, highlights the high bar for such governmental claims in legal proceedings.

The ongoing judicial scrutiny by Judge Kelly regarding the Trump executive press restrictions carries significant implications for First Amendment media access. The court's firm stance against the administration's attempts to control which media outlets can cover official proceedings, particularly when based on content disapproval, reinforces the principles of a free press. The judge's readiness to maintain the Timothy Kelly CNN ban injunction for the long haul sends a clear message about the limits of executive power in managing media relations.

This case, effectively a First Amendment media access lawsuit, underscores that governmental actions restricting press access, especially those perceived as content-based or retaliatory, will face rigorous examination in the US District Court. The court's skepticism towards national security pretexts for content-based restrictions sets a significant precedent for challenging similar governmental attempts to control media, emphasizing that the DOJ national security media access arguments must be robust and credible to withstand judicial review.

Lawyers advising media organizations or litigating First Amendment issues should note this ongoing judicial scrutiny of executive actions impacting press access. The court's skepticism towards national security pretexts for content-based restrictions sets a precedent for challenging similar governmental attempts to control media.

Source: Original reporting via Politico