CNN, MS NOW and Politico have warned a federal court that the Trump administration could reinstate a full ban on their White House access if a judge does not issue a preliminary injunction.
The three news organisations made the claim in a court filing on Monday, arguing that actions taken by the White House after a temporary court order showed it was likely to restore the restrictions.
Last week, US District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order requiring the White House to restore access for reporters from the outlets while he reviews the wider legal arguments. The order remains in effect for 14 days.
In their latest filing, lawyers for CNN, MS NOW and Politico said the administration’s actions since the ruling showed that it intended to continue limiting their access.
“Leave little doubt that it will immediately reinstitute a complete ban of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico if allowed the opportunity,” the lawyers wrote.
The legal team, led by Theodore Boutrous Jr., pointed to several incidents they said showed continued restrictions against CNN.
They cited CNN being blocked from covering State Dinner arrivals on Thursday and being removed as television pool provider for President Donald Trump’s trip to Tennessee on Saturday.
The outlets argued that the restrictions violated First Amendment protections and would cause lasting harm if not stopped.
“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,” their lawyers wrote.
Judge Kelly previously ruled that the White House had not followed proper due process when it removed dozens of reporters’ hard pass credentials.
The Trump administration has defended the restrictions, citing concerns over “professionalism and decorum” as well as national security.
The news organisations argued those explanations were vague and “pretextual,” saying Trump’s public comments showed the restrictions were linked to dissatisfaction with their coverage.
“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 organisations from newsgathering and reporting that the President might view as negative,” the lawyers said.
The outlets are asking the court to prevent the White House from removing hard pass credentials and to restore the level of access reporters had before September 18.
A preliminary injunction would keep the restrictions suspended until the case is resolved or an appeals court intervenes.
The dispute began after Trump barred the three outlets from White House access on September 18. The temporary restraining order later forced the administration to restore their credentials.
The CNN access issue is also connected to a separate legal dispute involving the Associated Press, which was removed from the White House press pool and other events. That case is currently before an appeals court.
The outlets also cited the continued CNN restrictions as evidence of retaliation over protected speech.
They said the wider impact could affect other media organisations that fear similar restrictions if their reporting is viewed as unfavourable by the president.
“Every day, critically important news is breaking at the White House, and the ban will substantially interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to cover it,” the filing stated.
Erizia Rubyjeana
Follow us on:
