Judge considering an emergency order to end Trump’s ban on CNN, MS Now and Politico

A judge on Wednesday began weighing an emergency reinstatement of three media outlets that President Trump ejected from the White House.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly was asked to issue a temporary restraining order against Mr. Trump’s ban on Politico, CNN and MS Now, pending additional arguments in the case. He said he would “try to get an answer as soon as I can.”

The judge heard from the media outlets’ attorney, Theodore “Ted” Boutrous Jr., who argued that the sudden ban was illegitimate and retaliatory, violating the First Amendment and depriving the organizations of their right to due process.

“Here the constitutional violation is against the public interest,” Mr. Boutrous said. He called Mr. Trump’s ban “clearly a retaliatory case” meant to chill reporting on his administration that he finds objectionable.

Justice Department senior counsel Michael Velchik argued that the press has no constitutional right to access the nonpublic areas of the White House and that its access can be restricted, even for viewpoint-discrimination reasons. Mr. Velchik said, however, that the ban is the result of stories the outlets published or aired that contained “sensitive or classified information” and that “trafficked in falsehoods,” posing a threat to national security.

Mr. Velchik opposed the emergency reinstatement of the reporters, arguing that an emergency order would infringe on the separation of powers and pose a national security concern if the president were forced to allow banned reporters close access to the White House during meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The Trump administration sent letters Tuesday to the three outlets, detailing the stories it says were a threat to national security and setting Friday as the deadline for the outlets to respond.

“If they have points to raise, they can do so to the president, who will consider anything — but I didn’t even hear them objecting to those points here today,” Mr. Velchik argued.

Advertisement Advertisement

The ban has escalated into a battle with the larger media. It has left the White House and the president without official coverage from the television and still photo pools designated to record and distribute footage and photos to networks and affiliates. Dozens of news outlets filed a court brief Wednesday in support of the banned outlets.

The main media outlets responsible for pool coverage have paused or refused pool coverage of Mr. Trump in solidarity with the banned outlets.

The president said he banned the three organizations because they produced “fake news” and overwhelmingly negative coverage of his administration. The Justice Department argued in court that the journalists did not have the right of access to the White House and that they published stories containing leaked information that posed a threat to national security.

Mr. Boutrous contested the national security argument, noting that Mr. Trump’s initial social media post announcing the ban “didn’t say anything about national security,” and complained only in general terms about the coverage.

Judge Kelly was appointed by Mr. Trump but has previously ruled against the president.

Advertisement Advertisement

Contact the author

Susan Ferrechio

sferrechio@washingtontimes.com

View staff page

Follow author updates Follow Click to follow. Manage followed authors