Judge Blocks Trump's White House Media Ban, Orders Access to Be Restored for CNN, MS Now, Politico

Washington: A US federal judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to restore White House access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico, ruling that the ban on the three news organisations was likely unconstitutional, Reuters reported.

US District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, issued the order in a lawsuit filed by the three media organisations challenging Trump's decision to bar them from the White House.

According to Reuters, the ruling marks a setback for the Trump administration in its ongoing dispute with the media. Trump had announced the restrictions last week.

Trump had defended the decision on social media, arguing that the three outlets should not be permitted to repeatedly publish what he described as false reports.

The White House restrictions were challenged in court by CNN, MS NOW and Politico, which contested the administration's decision to revoke their access.

Kelly's order came after a hearing on Wednesday in which the judge had questioned whether the administration had followed proper due process before revoking the outlets' White House press credentials.

Kelly expressed scepticism during a hearing on the outlets' request to restore their access, saying near the beginning of the proceedings that due process “wasn’t followed here".

The three organisations sued the administration on First Amendment grounds after their journalists were denied access to the White House grounds on Saturday and their hard press badges were revoked.

Representing the media organisations, attorney Theodore Boutrous urged Kelly on Wednesday to immediately restore the outlets' credentials, arguing that the administration's action amounted to “viewpoint discrimination” and saying the decision came “completely out of the blue.”

“These are urgent matters,” Boutrous told the judge.

“We’re at war. World leaders are coming to Washington," he added, as quoted by The Hill.

The US Justice Department, meanwhile, defended the administration's position that access to the White House is not an unrestricted right.

“Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” DOJ attorney Michael Velchik said during the hearing, as quoted by The Hill, adding that “at the very least, the president may exclude anyone he wants from the Oval Office.”

In court filings, the DOJ argued that the White House is both the workplace and residence of the US President and that the administration has a compelling interest in enforcing standards for journalists granted access to the complex and in protecting national security information.

“The White House is the home and workplace for the Nation’s Commander-in-Chief. Plaintiffs CNN, MSNOW, and Politico have long been granted privileged access to White House grounds. But the President concluded that they have failed to maintain basic minimum “standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including” by “publishing sensitive or classified information,” the department said in its filing.

The DOJ also argued that the President could restrict access to areas such as the Oval Office even where the decision was alleged to have been motivated by viewpoint discrimination.

“At the very least, the Government may control reporters’ access to restricted presidential areas, such as the Oval Office, even for viewpoint-discriminatory reasons," the filing said.

The department rejected the argument that the restrictions were retaliatory and said the same action would have been taken regardless of the outlets' criticism of Trump.

“Second, the President’s actions were not retaliatory because the Government would have taken the same action anyway, notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ speech criticising the President—indeed, the President has not revoked access to other outlets that have equally criticised the President,” the filing said.

The administration has also cited national security concerns in defending the restrictions. However, the media organisations' attorney argued that the administration's current justification differs from Trump's initial explanation for the ban, which focused on what he described as negative coverage by the three outlets.

Boutrous characterised the reporting cited by the administration as “garden-variety reporting” and argued that invoking national security as a “magic word” could not by itself justify the restrictions, The Hill reported.

ALSO READ: US and Indian Top Diplomats Discuss Russia Sanctions Bill Signed by Trump