A federal judge ordered the White House to continue allowing journalists from CNN, MS Now, and Politico to access the building while a media coalition\u2019s lawsuit against the Trump administration proceeds. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly issued the preliminary injunction following an earlier temporary restraining order that had granted a 14-day reprieve on September 24, 2026.<\/p>\n
The original ban was enacted on September 18, 2026, when the president revoked the “hard pass” press credentials held by employees of the three news organizations, citing what was termed their constant reporting of “FAKE NEWS.” In response, the media organizations filed a lawsuit on September 21, 2026, arguing that the ban violated their rights under the US Constitution.<\/p>\n
Judge Kelly’s ruling orders that the defendants and their agents shall not execute, implement, or enforce the September 18 decision, thereby maintaining the status quo. In his written decision, Kelly noted that the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims.” He further pointed out that while access to the White House is not guaranteed, established court precedent dictates that once access is provided to journalists, it cannot be revoked for editorial or viewpoint-based reasons.<\/p>\n
During arguments at the E Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, Judge Kelly indicated that the federal government faced a significant obstacle regarding a “notice problem.” The Trump White House gave no advance notice to the affected media companies before cutting off building access, issuing notification letters only post-hoc. This action violated binding court precedent.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs’ legal standing was further strengthened by public remarks from the president. During arguments for the preliminary injunction on October 8, media lawyer Theodore J Boutrous highlighted a Time<\/em> magazine interview in which the president discussed the ban. Boutrous argued that the interview served as a “confession” that the outlets were targeted explicitly because of the content of their reporting rather than national security considerations.<\/p>\n Judge Kelly expressed agreement with this assessment in his ruling, writing that the president’s comments “suggest that he intended the revocation of Plaintiffs\u2019 hard passes to alter their reporting on him, bolstering the case that his action here is sufficient to deter a reporter of ordinary firmness from reporting in the same way she had before.”<\/p>\n Although the White House has largely adhered to the prior ruling restoring access on a temporary basis, disputes have emerged regarding specific reporting duties. According to the court extracts, journalists for CNN and Politico have occasionally been prevented from performing “pool duty”\u2014covering the daily activities of the president\u2014because the administration interpreted the temporary restraining order to require access only to the broader White House complex rather than restricted spaces such as the Oval Office or Air Force One.<\/p>\n Following the preliminary injunction, attorney Theodore J Boutrous issued a statement praising the decision. “When the President issued his ‘ban on the free press,’ he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment,” Boutrous said, adding that the court “was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on the free press’ for the foreseeable future” as the underlying lawsuit continues, a process that could take months.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A federal district court judge has issued a preliminary injunction extending White House access for CNN, MS Now, and Politico amidst an ongoing lawsuit against the Trump administration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":875,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-873","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-world"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailytarjuman.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/873","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailytarjuman.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailytarjuman.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailytarjuman.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailytarjuman.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=873"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dailytarjuman.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/873\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":874,"href":"https:\/\/dailytarjuman.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/873\/revisions\/874"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailytarjuman.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/875"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailytarjuman.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=873"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailytarjuman.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=873"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailytarjuman.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=873"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Ongoing Disputes Over Scope of Access<\/h2>\n