A federal judge has ordered the White House to restore access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico, just days after President Trump had banned the outlets from the complex.
Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, released his decision overnight Wednesday into Thursday, meaning that the reporters could return to the complex as early as today.
“This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law. We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action,” said Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr, attorney for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter.
Trump said last week that he was banning the three outlets from the White House, and subsequently justified it by citing vague concerns around national security. The White House TV pool has since been suspended, with CNN not able to participate.
In the Temporary Restraining Order, Kelly wrote that after examining the facts, the plaintiffs made a strong enough argument to warrant the decision. For example, the White House had renewed CNN reporter Betsy Klein’s pass months after some of the reporting it cited to justify her ban had been published.
“Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed in showing that their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process. The ‘general rule’ is that ‘individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them’ of a constitutionally protected interest.” he wrote in the ruling. “Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs did not receive notice and an opportunity to b heard before their hard passes were revoked.”
He also poured cold water on the national security claims made by President Trump in recent days.
“Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. 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. “And even the justifications provided to Plaintiffs after this case was filed are ambiguous about the true purpose of the revocations: while Defendants’ letters to Plaintiffs mention national security concerns, they purport to identify reporting that “threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods,” leaving open the possibility that all the stories fall into the later bucket, rather than the former.”
