A federal judge signaled he is likely to prolong his order blocking President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke press credentials for three media organizations, saying the administration’s late national-security rationale conflicts with the president’s public statements that the ban was driven by displeasure with coverage. The dispute was aired at a hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., where lawyers for the news organizations and the Justice Department debated whether a longer injunction is warranted while litigation proceeds, according to POLITICO.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, already issued a two-week restraining order last month that allowed POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW to regain access to the West Wing; he extended that order through Tuesday and is now considering a more durable injunction that could preserve access during what could be months of litigation, POLITICO reported.
Kelly said he found the administration’s assertion that the ban was grounded in national-security concerns difficult to reconcile with repeated public statements by Trump that he revoked the organizations’ access because he disliked their coverage. “That’s an uphill climb,” Kelly told Justice Department attorneys, according to POLITICO.
Flight attendants’ union raises safety concerns about Trump’s Washington arch
Amazon to eliminate about 1,000 corporate jobs in stores unit and other areas, report says
The judge’s earlier ruling concluded the ban likely violated the outlets’ due-process rights because the White House removed access without prior notice or any clearly defined standards that would allow news organizations to understand how to keep their credentials. Kelly told the courtroom the administration faces a major obstacle in trying to justify the action after the president’s own comments undermined the national-security explanation. “That’s probably the biggest hurdle you all have,” he added, noting the sparse presence of Justice Department counsel among a large contingent of media executives, reporters and First Amendment lawyers at the hearing.
Attorneys for the news organizations argued the ban also raises First Amendment concerns and appears aimed at chilling critical coverage. Theodore Boutrous Jr., representing the outlets, told Kelly that a recent interview Trump gave to Time magazine amounts to an admission that the revocations were motivated by the president’s disagreement with their reporting. “That interview really is the coup de grace,” Boutrous said, and he also pointed to a recent comment from Attorney General Todd Blanche characterizing the moves as a response to the outlets’ “one-sided reporting,” according to POLITICO.
Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik countered that the administration did provide due process after the revocations took effect, pointing to unsigned letters from the White House press office sent in the days after the lawsuit was filed that identified a handful of stories the administration characterized as misinformation or national-security risks. Velchik argued the outlets “defaulted” by failing to respond to those letters and repeatedly attributed the letters’ content to the president, even though the correspondence was unsigned and Trump did not publicly reference them.
Boutrous labeled that post-hoc correspondence a “sham process,” stressing there was no evidence the president had authorized or even seen the letters. Velchik urged the court to defer to the president’s discretion over who receives access to the White House press areas, arguing those decisions warrant greater leeway than typical agency actions. “The White House is a sacred place,” Velchik said. He added that, from the administration’s standpoint, the decision falls within presidential discretion: “From our perspective, it’s within the discretion of the president.”
Kelly emphasized that his review is guided by established precedent limiting the government’s ability to bar journalists from White House press areas on the basis of disagreement with their reporting, and by requirements that access restrictions rest on clear, preannounced standards. The Justice Department has said it disagrees with those precedents, but the judge said he is bound to follow them, POLITICO reported.
This account is based on reporting that originally appeared on POLITICO and was distributed through the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network; it was republished by Business Insider.
