Skip to content

CNN, MS NOW and Politico are warning that the Trump administration will reimpose a “complete ban” on their access to the White House without a judge issuing a preliminary injunction.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a temporary restraining order, forcing the White House to restore access to the White House to the outlets as he more fully considers the legal arguments. The TRO lasts for 14 days.

In a filing in federal court on Monday, attorneys for the three news outlets argued that the Trump White House actions since then “leave little doubt that it will immediately reinstitute a complete ban of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico if allowed the opportunity.”

The outlets’ legal team, led by Theodore Boutrous Jr., pointed to the White House’s restriction on CNN from access to State Dinner arrivals on Thursday evening. The network then was barred from serving as TV pooler on Air Force One on Trump’s trip to Tennessee on Saturday, with no replacement stepping in, and leaving a dearth of TV images from the trip.

“Because the ban is an unlawful assault on the most fundamental First Amendment freedoms and will inflict irreparable harm on Plaintiffs and the public if not restrained, this Court should preliminarily enjoin its enforcement pending the resolution of this case,” the news outlets’ attorneys wrote.

Kelly cited a lack of due process by the White House when it pulled dozens of credentials of reporters from the three outlets. While the Trump DOJ has cited standards of “professionalism and decorum” and national security concerns, the media outlets’ legal team called that reasoning that “pretextual” and “post hoc,” as well as vague.

In the latest brief, CNN, MS NOW and Politico also again cited violations of the First Amendment. They noted that Trump has explained the ban by blaming their coverage as “Purposely … negative,” among other things.

“His statements also make clear he implemented the ban to coerce more favorable coverage from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and to deter other journalists and news organizations from newsgathering and reporting that the President might view as negative,” the news outlets’ legal team wrote. “And his administration has continued to retaliate against Plaintiffs even after the temporary restraining order, only underscoring that Defendants’ motive is to punish and chill journalism they dislike.”

The outlets are asking the judge to prohibit the Trump team from pulling hard pass credentials, or to ensure the reporters of the White House access they had before Sept. 18. In contrast to a TRO, a preliminary injunction would sideline Trump’s ban until a trial is held, or if an appeals court rules otherwise.

Trump initially banned the three outlets on Sept. 18. When the judge granted a TRO last early Thursday, it meant that the White House had to restore hard passes, with reporters not gaining reentry until around noon that day.

The issue of whether the White House can also restrict CNN from the pool is a slightly different, but related issue. It’s also one at the center of another case, involving the Associated Press after it was banned from the pool and other White House events. That case is currently on appeal.

That said, in the latest brief, the three outlets cited the White House’s continued prohibitions on CNN as an example of White House retaliation over protected speech.

For much of last week, there was no TV network pool, meaning that there was little video coverage of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to the White House. The four other networks in the pool — CBS News, ABC News, Fox News and NBC News — initially suspended their participation in protest of the exclusion of CNN. The networks resumed the TV pool coverage this week, but it will be put to the test again on Thursday, when CNN is assigned to that duty.

“Every day, critically important news is breaking at the White House, and the ban will substantially interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to cover it,” the outlets brief stated. “The ban also inflicts an injury on all news media organizations—which now risk a similar fate if they engage in fact-based, independent reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable.”

The DOJ’s brief in response is due by Friday.

Skip to content