Washington — A federal judge on Wednesday signaled he is skeptical of President Trump’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House grounds, saying in a hearing that the outlets were not given due process before their access was cut off.
Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments from the attorneys for the news outlets and the Justice Department in the dispute. Mr. Trump announced last week that the outlets were banned from the White House for their reporting. All three filed suit on Monday and sought a temporary restraining order, asking Kelly to immediately restore their employees’ access to the White House complex.
Kelly pointed to two cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that serve as precedent: a case known as Karem v. Trump from 2022, and another known as Sherrill v. Knight that was decided in 1977. Those cases established the precedent that the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process applies when the White House tries to revoke a journalist’s access.
“I think it is fair to say” that the process laid out in those two cases “wasn’t followed here,” Kelly said in Wednesday’s hearing.
In a filing late Tuesday ahead of the hearing, the Justice Department said government lawyers submitted letters to the three outlets telling them their access was revoked. The letters claimed that the news outlets have “exhibited behavior in violation of the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including by trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information.”
The White House press office gave each of the news organizations until Friday at 5 p.m. to respond to the decision to revoke their credentials.
But Kelly pressed the Justice Department about the timing of the letters, noting that the news outlets only received notice about appropriate conduct after losing their credentials.
“I don’t know how a letter that they got after the pass was revoked could provide them with the kind of standards that they would have to conform their conduct to. It’s a piece of paper they got saying, ‘You’ve already violated this,'” the judge said.
Ted Boutrous, an attorney representing the news outlets, told the judge that the letters “completely do not reflect what the president himself has said” and did not “even [come] close to conforming with due process or the First Amendment.”
“The letters announced after-the-fact standards,” Boutrous said.
Boutrous also took issue with the government’s notion that there are national security issues at play, saying that assertion was a “post hoc” justification and “not legitimate.” He said the government views national security as a “talisman” and “magic words.”
“They’re literally arguing that reporters shouldn’t scrutinize national security decisions and activities by the government,” he said, referring to the Justice Department’s argument. “That’s what the First Amendment baked into the Constitution — that journalists and the press could hold government officials accountable, serve as a check on them.”
Boutrous noted that Mr. Trump only mentioned national security as a justification for revoking the journalists’ access on Monday after the news organizations filed their lawsuit, saying it was like a “lightbulb went off” to raise it as an issue.
But Michael Velchik, a lawyer at the Justice Department, argued that “access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” and rejected Boutrous’ argument that the president was discriminating against the news outlets based on the content of their coverage.
He noted that Mr. Trump frequently criticizes members of the media, including from outlets like ABC News and the New York Times, which continue to have access to the White House.
Reporters “can’t have a get-out-of-jail-free card” if they can find a social media post criticizing them, Velchik said.
Velchik also argued that the president should be allowed to “take immediate action” to protect national security by swiftly banning the reporters.
Kelly closed the hearing without issuing a ruling from the bench, but said he would make a decision “as soon as I can.”
Mr. Trump’s ban had an immediate impact not only on each outlet’s ability to access the White House grounds, but also CNN’s participation in the White House television pool, which also includes four other outlets: CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and Fox News.
CNN was supposed to travel with Mr. Trump to New York on Monday for the United Nations General Assembly as part of the press pool, but was removed from the trip because of the ban. As a result, the four other networks suspended the television pool altogether in support of CNN.
The five-network television pool captures footage of the president that is then distributed to the other members of the TV pool and their affiliates and subscribers. Only these networks have set up and maintained the physical infrastructure to transmit footage from the White House and when traveling with the president to affiliates.
Chinese President Xi Jinping is set to arrive in Washington, D.C., later Wednesday, but the major television networks in the pool are not providing coverage of Mr. Trump’s activities because of the ban.
