White House press ban continues as judge delays ruling

<p>A judge on September 23, 2026, expressed skepticism regarding arguments from the Trump administration justifying the White House's ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. However, he did not grant the news outlets' request for a temporary restraining order at this time.</p><p><strong>Context:</strong> The absence of an immediate ruling means the White House is not legally required to lift the ban, which may prolong the press boycott and limit visual coverage of the White House for the American public.</p><hr /><ul><li>Other news outlets that were not banned have shown solidarity by vowing to suspend video and photo distribution until access for the banned outlets is restored.</li></ul><p><strong>Details:</strong> U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed by Trump, indicated that the president's abrupt decision to revoke reporter credentials seemed to conflict with legal precedents that mandate journalists receive notice prior to such actions, according to Politico.</p><ul><li>The judge stated he intends to issue a ruling on the request for injunctive relief soon.</li></ul><p><strong>Background:</strong> The banned outlets filed for a temporary restraining order to regain access while their lawsuit, initiated on September 21, 2026, is processed. A favorable ruling would signify the judge's belief that their case has merit.</p><ul><li>In their complaint, the outlets claimed that the White House infringed upon their First Amendment rights by blocking them in retaliation for their reporting and discriminating against their viewpoints, as well as violating their Fifth Amendment rights by banning them without due process.</li></ul><p><strong>Counterarguments:</strong> The Justice Department, in a filing on September 22, 2026, contended that press access is a privilege rather than a constitutional right, asserting that the revocation of the plaintiffs' press passes was due to national security concerns.</p><p><strong>Industry Support:</strong> The news industry has largely backed the banned outlets. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, along with 50 other news organizations, filed a court brief supporting the plaintiffs.</p><p><strong>Historical Context:</strong> Judge Kelly previously oversaw a similar case in 2018 involving CNN, where he granted a temporary restraining order that reinstated then-correspondent Jim Acosta's press badge, ruling that the revocation without notice or an appeal process violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Although that case is not binding, it may influence Kelly's current decision.</p><ul><li>Press freedom advocates argue that the plaintiffs have a strong First Amendment case, citing a precedent established by a federal appeals court in 1977, which ruled that the White House cannot revoke a journalist's press credentials based on their coverage or viewpoint.</li><li>In that instance, journalist Robert Sherrill sued the White House after being denied a press pass without explanation, leading to a ruling that once the White House opens a space as a public forum, it cannot selectively revoke access based on viewpoint or coverage.</li></ul><p><strong>Next Steps:</strong> Trump has indicated he may appeal the ruling on the injunction if it does not favor him.</p><p><em>Note: The author of this article is a paid contributor for CNN.</em></p>