Trump administration appeals ruling blocking White House ban on MS NOW, CNN and Politico

Justice Department challenges preliminary injunction that found the ban likely constituted unlawful viewpoint discrimination

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
The Department of Justice on Wednesday appealed a federal judge's decision to extend an order blocking the White House from enforcing its ban on MS NOW, CNN and Politico, less than a day after U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled the three outlets could keep their access to the White House complex. The notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit comes as the ongoing lawsuit over the ban proceeds.

The Department of Justice said Wednesday it is appealing a federal judge's decision to extend an order blocking the White House from enforcing its ban on MS NOW, CNN and Politico. The notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came less than a day after U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled that the three outlets targeted by President Donald Trump can keep their access to the White House complex.

That ruling, a preliminary injunction, replaces Kelly's temporary restraining order against the ban that Trump first announced on September 18. It is not a final ruling in the ongoing lawsuit that the three news outlets filed against Trump, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, U.S. Secret Service Director Sean Curran and White House communications director Steven Cheung.

In an opinion filed Tuesday night, Kelly said the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that Trump and his co-defendants violated their First Amendment rights through unlawful retaliation and viewpoint discrimination. "It is likely that Plaintiffs were selected by President Trump for revocation of their access to the White House press area because he believes their coverage of him and his administration is generally inaccurate and biased," wrote Kelly, whom Trump nominated in 2017 for his current seat. He added that the ban was "an effort to suppress the speaker's activity due to disagreement with the speaker's view" rather than to vindicate any other purportedly compelling governmental interest, including maintaining professional standards for journalists or protecting national security. "Simply put, that is unlawful viewpoint discrimination," the judge wrote.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The case tests the limits of presidential authority to control press access to the White House complex, a core venue for political journalism.
  • The ruling reinforces First Amendment protections against viewpoint-based retaliation, setting a precedent for how administrations may treat news organizations they consider unfavorable.
  • The appeal will move the dispute to a higher court, with potential implications for press freedom and the separation of powers.

Background

President Donald Trump announced a ban on MS NOW, CNN and Politico from the White House press area on September 18. The three outlets sued, arguing the ban was retaliatory and violated their First Amendment rights. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly initially issued a temporary restraining order, which he replaced on October 13 with a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims. The Department of Justice quickly filed a notice of appeal.

Key Perspectives

The Trump administration: Argues the ban is a matter of professional standards or national security and that the president has discretion over press access. The appeal seeks to overturn the preliminary injunction. The targeted news outlets: Contend the ban is unlawful retaliation for critical coverage, violating their First Amendment rights to free speech and press. They seek a permanent order restoring unfettered access. Civil liberties and press advocates: Generally view the ruling as a strong defense of press freedom against executive overreach, while noting the case remains at an early stage.

What to Watch

  • The D.C. Circuit's response to the emergency appeal and whether it will stay the injunction pending a full hearing.
  • The timeline for a final ruling in the lawsuit, which could address the constitutionality of the ban more permanently.
  • Any further actions by the White House to restrict press access through other means or for other outlets.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.

How we workSubscribe