News outlets back at White House

Three news organisations banned from the White House for days were back yesterday after a judge handed them a victory in an extraordinary showdown between President Donald Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes.

On a chaotic day at the White House gates and in court, CNN, MS NOW and Politico journalists were initially denied entry, but allowed back in by early afternoon. The developments played out as Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Trump in Washington.

A Secret Service agent had confiscated the journalists’ credentials yesterday morning, the news outlets said in a court filing. They asked for an immediate hearing to address what seemed to be the White House ignoring the court’s order. But the White House said in its own filing, shortly after reporters were allowed back in, that it had taken time to reinstate disabled badges.

Trump first announced he was banning the outlets last Friday, assailing what he called “fake news”. He later said their reporting was a risk to national security. The outlets argued in a joint lawsuit that the ban was a blatant violation of the First Amendment because it singled them out for the content of their coverage.

In his late-night ruling to temporarily strike down the ban, Kelly said the news outlets had met the legal thresholds to obtain a temporary restraining order, in effect for 14 days, and were likely to be able to show they had not been given due process.

“This is a high bar, but Plaintiffs have met it,” he wrote.

Kelly – whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar case in 2018 – said the government must have clear standards for conduct that would lead to revoking a press pass. He called the standard of objectionable reporting outlined in letters that the White House sent the outlets “so vague it hardly does the trick”.

The judge also made clear he did not buy the administration’s argument that the news outlets’ reporting endangered national security, and noted that Trump himself had not used that argument in the beginning, focusing solely on what he called negative coverage.

The ruling came after Kelly heard arguments in an emergency hearing Wednesday. Temporary restraining orders are typically designed to preserve the status quo pending a closer review of the case by the court.

“This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law,” Theodore Boutrous Jr, attorney for the outlets, said in an emailed statement. “We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action.”

The White House did not respond to emails asking for comment on the order.

Boutrous argued in the hearing that there was an urgent need for renewed access, saying that the ban caused irreparable harm to the outlets at a time of momentous news events. “We’re at war,” he told the judge. “We have world leaders coming to Washington.”

Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik, in his argument, reiterated the administration’s point that the president has the right to choose who gets into the White House.

“Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” Velchik said.

In arguing that Trump was not engaging in viewpoint discrimination – the government singling out specific media outlets for the content of what they say or publish – Velchik said the president had criticised other news organizations, but not banned them. He noted, for example, that Trump had called ABC “the worst”.

The ban prompted other media outlets to take action in solidarity. The US network press pool, consisting of the five major networks, including CNN, has suspended coverage of Trump pool events pending further notice. The ruling did not address that rotating pool.