A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered President Donald Trump on Thursday to immediately reinstate White House press credentials for journalists from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. The ruling issued a 14-day temporary restraining order against the media ban implemented by the President last week, marking a significant legal challenge to the administration’s actions.
District Judge Timothy Kelly determined that the ban likely violated the outlets’ constitutional due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The decision follows a lawsuit filed by the three news organizations earlier in the week, which characterized the revocation of their passes as a direct assault on First Amendment freedoms and a violation of procedural due process.
“The plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success, at least on their Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim,” Kelly wrote in his order. He concluded that the media groups were likely to prove their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process. The court directed that access be restored until further order or the expiration of the restraining order.
Judge Kelly also dismissed the Trump administration’s argument that the ban was justified by national security concerns. In his ruling, Kelly noted that President Trump’s public statements focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negative tone of the outlets’ reporting rather than security threats.
“Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ plaintiffs from the White House—instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs’ reporting,” Kelly wrote, referencing the President’s frequent use of the term “fake news.”
The Justice Department had argued in a Tuesday filing that the outlets received adequate notice of the ban and maintained that the President’s actions were lawful under the First Amendment. However, Kelly contested the adequacy of the notice provided.
Ted Boutrous, the attorney representing the news outlets, called the decision a vindication of press freedom and the rule of law. In a statement to TIME, Boutrous expressed appreciation for the court’s swift action. TIME has reached out to the White House and the Justice Department for comment regarding the ruling.
The legal battle has sparked widespread solidarity across the journalism industry. CNN, one of five U.S. news organizations rotating responsibility for pooled video coverage, was scheduled to cover President Trump’s trip to the United Nations General Assembly in New York when the ban took effect. Other major networks declined to replace CNN’s pool crew, leading to a rare joint statement from ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC.
“The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No Administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting,” the coalition stated. Additionally, publications including The New York Times and The Washington Post announced they would withhold distribution of still photographs taken during White House pool coverage.
On Wednesday, 49 media organizations filed a legal brief supporting the plaintiffs. The brief argued that stripping journalists of their rights based on perceived editorial viewpoint violates decades of Supreme Court precedent and is impermissible in any forum, including the White House.
Prior to the ruling, President Trump dismissed the legal challenge and expressed regret over appointing Judge Kelly during his first term. The two have a prior history in this matter; Kelly previously ordered the reinstatement of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press credentials after Trump revoked them following a contentious news conference interaction.
Trump vowed to appeal the decision, stating that media outlets writing what he described as false and defamatory stories should not have access to the Oval Office. However, Kelly’s filing indicated that temporary restraining orders are generally not subject to immediate appeal. Instead, the court will schedule expedited briefing on a motion for a preliminary injunction over the next 14 days, allowing both sides to submit additional evidence for the judge’s consideration.
I find it hard to believe the DOJ argued this was about security. Everyone knows the real reason is the negative coverage.
The cross-network solidarity is impressive. Even Fox and NBC standing with CNN shows how dangerous this precedent would be.
Thank goodness Judge Kelly saw through the national security pretext. The President’s own words proved this was purely about bad press.
A 14-day band-aid on a constitutional issue. What happens when the restraining order expires if they don’t drop the appeal?