ع
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a temporary restraining order in the early hours of September 24 requiring the Trump administration to immediately reinstate hard passes for journalists from CNN, Politico and MS NOW after the outlets mounted a joint legal challenge. Kelly, who wrote an eight-page ruling issued just before 1 a.m. Eastern time, concluded that the three organizations met the high bar of showing they were likely to succeed on claims that the revocations violated due process and First Amendment protections. The order halts enforcement of the ban for 14 days and schedules expedited briefing on a preliminary injunction, citing the urgent needs of a free press and the public interest in preserving access. According to the decision, the outlets did not receive adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard before their credentials were pulled.
President Donald Trump announced the ban on September 18 through a social media post that accused the three outlets of negative and untruthful coverage of his administration. The White House followed up with letters outlining specific stories it viewed as problematic, including routine reports on construction projects at the executive residence such as work on a new ballroom. Judge Kelly noted in his order that most of those articles were filed by reporters who did not hold hard passes, and the administration failed to show that possession of such credentials was integral to the reporting in question. The judge called the White House standard for objectionable coverage so vague that it could not justify the action.
The news organizations filed suit in federal court in Washington arguing that the move represented retaliation for their coverage rather than any legitimate security concern. Attorney Theodore Boutrous, who represents CNN, Politico and MS NOW, described the ruling as a strong vindication of press freedom, due process and the rule of law after the court acted swiftly on their request for a temporary restraining order. Boutrous emphasized that the decision underscores the limits on executive authority to exclude journalists based on the content of their work. The outlets had contended that the ban singled them out unlawfully and disrupted their ability to cover the presidency.
Kelly expressed skepticism toward the administration’s claim that the revocations were needed to safeguard national security, writing that the record lacked factual support for that position and that reinstatement would not endanger it during litigation. The judge pointed out that Trump himself made no reference to national security when announcing the ban and instead highlighted what he portrayed as the outlets’ lack of truthfulness and negative tone. In the ruling, Kelly observed that the disputed stories amounted to routine journalism rather than any threat. He added that precedents from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit make clear that journalists are entitled to due process before losing White House access.
This marks the second time Kelly has ordered restoration of credentials after a Trump administration attempt to restrict media access, following his 2018 ruling in favor of a CNN correspondent whose pass was revoked in a similar dispute. A FactCheck.org analysis found that the current ban of entire outlets exceeds actions taken by Presidents Obama and Biden in their disputes with reporters. Legal filings in the case cited the 1977 appeals court decision in Sherrill v. Knight, which held that once press facilities are established at the White House, access cannot be denied based on the content of coverage.
Trump responded on social media before the hearing by labeling Kelly totally disloyal and predicting an adverse outcome, while stating that the administration would pursue an appeal as usual. The White House did not issue an immediate comment on the overnight ruling according to NBC News inquiries. The action affected credentials held by 78 journalists across the three organizations and came with a warning from Trump that other outlets could face similar bans if he deemed their coverage unacceptable. Court filings from the administration had described the measure as preliminary and given the outlets until the end of the week to respond before it took full effect.
