District Court Orders White House to Restore Access to Banned News Outlets

<p>A district court judge ruled that the White House violated the Fifth Amendment rights of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico by banning them, and granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order that requires the White House to immediately reinstate their press access for 14 days.</p><p><strong>Why it matters</strong>: Had the judge ruled against the plaintiffs, the broader press boycott could have continued, potentially limiting the American public's access to visual coverage of the White House.</p><hr /><ul><li>Outlets that were not banned but expressed solidarity with the affected news organizations vowed to suspend video and photo distribution until their peers' access was restored.</li></ul><p><strong>Zoom in</strong>: In a court filing on Wednesday, district judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, stated that the plaintiffs "have shown a likelihood of success, at least on their Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim."</p><ul><li>He noted, "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."</li></ul><p><strong>Context</strong>: This ruling comes ahead of a meeting at the White House between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, allowing journalists to cover the event and ensuring public access to video and photography.</p><p><strong>Zoom out</strong>: The decision is considered a significant win for the media, reinforcing previous precedents regarding Fifth Amendment rights.</p><ul><li>The outlets argued that the White House violated their First Amendment rights by blocking them in retaliation for their reporting and discriminating against their viewpoint, as well as their Fifth Amendment rights by banning them without due process.</li></ul><p><strong>Flashback</strong>: Judge Kelly previously oversaw a CNN lawsuit against the White House for blocked access in 2018, where he granted CNN a temporary restraining order requiring the White House to restore then-correspondent Jim Acosta's press badge, ruling that the White House violated his Fifth Amendment rights by revoking his credentials without notice or an appeal process.</p><ul><li>While the outcome of that case isn't binding, it informs Kelly's decision-making. CNN, MS NOW, and Politico referenced that case in their lawsuit.</li></ul><p><strong>Zoom out</strong>: Press freedom lawyers assert that the plaintiffs have a strong First Amendment case, supported by a binding legal precedent established by a higher court.</p><ul><li>In 1977, a federal appeals court ruled that the White House could not revoke a journalist's press credentials based on their coverage or viewpoint.</li><li>In that case, journalist Robert Sherrill sued the White House for being denied a press pass without explanation.</li><li>The court ruled that once the White House opens a space as a public forum and allows journalists in, it cannot selectively remove access for specific reporters based on their viewpoint or coverage under the First Amendment.</li></ul><p><strong>What's next: </strong>The judge will hear more evidence from the plaintiffs and defendants over the next two weeks, after which an appeal may be possible.</p>