Today in court
• A federal judge briefly extended CNN, MS Now, and Politico’s access to the White House while he considers a longer-term ruling on President Donald Trump’s press ban. US District Judge Timothy Kelly signaled skepticism about the administration’s arguments for allowing the ban.
• The Justice Department argued that Trump previously put “CNN on notice” with his complaints about “fake news,” adding: “Trump doesn’t mind negative press stories if he deserves them.”
• Lawyers for the news organizations said this week that the White House had offered no new evidence to support its repeated claims that the news outlets’ reporting has endangered national security. On Thursday, attorney Ted Boutros Jr. told the judge that national security reporting is important to “hold the government accountable.” Outlets, he said, take national security concerns into consideration ahead of publication if raised by the government.
Updates
(21)Our live coverage of today’s hearing has concluded. Please scroll through the posts below to learn about all that happened in court. You can read our takeaways here.
Judge appears skeptical of Trump administration arguments to enforce media ban
Judge Tim Kelly expressed skepticism about the government’s arguments to end his temporary restraining order and allow the enforcement of the White House media ban.
Kelly repeatedly noted to the Justice Department attorney that he was bound by DC Circuit precedent — including the precedent that the administration was objecting to.
One line of question for government lawyer Michael Velchik was focused the lack of notice the outlets received before the White House cut off their access. The case law around due process claims — one of the key claims the outlets are making in this case — says that only in “hair on fire” situations can the government yank away a right it has granted a person without given them advanced notice, Kelly said, emphasizing a requirement that the government show there was “urgent need” for taking immediate action.
The situation in this case, however, seemed “more attenuated,” Kelly said.
The judge also grilled Velchik on the gap between the rationale that Trump has repeatedly given for banning in outlets — Trump, in repeated, public remarks pointed to their history of negative coverage of him — and the national security justification that the Justice Department is leaning on in court filings.
Kelly said it was “unusual” that “the decision maker seems to have said …I am taking this action because ‘x’ and ‘y’,” and now the government is saying, “it’s ‘z’.”
“It just seems like that fact pattern is a hard one to find” looking at other relevant cases, Kelly said, calling it an “uphill climb” for the Justice Department.
Velchik argued that the Supreme Court decision upholding Trump’s travel ban against mostly Muslim countries in his first administration supported the administration on this front.
While Kelly seemed somewhat open to the idea that the White House could ban reporters for national security reasons in some contexts, he appeared skeptical of how the administration was trying to use that justification in this case. He asked Velchik to walk him through “the strongest things in the record” that bolster the national security justification.
Key takeaways from the hearing over the White House press ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico
A federal judge is still weighing a longer term extension of his ruling blocking aspects of President Donald Trump’s ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.
In the interim, US District Judge Timothy Kelly extended a temporary order through Tuesday that requires the Trump administration grant those outlets entry to the White House grounds.
The judge said a ruling could come on Tuesday or earlier.
If you’re just joining us, here are key moments from today’s hearing:
News outlet arguments:
- The outlets’ attorney, Ted Boutrous, argued that journalists report on national security issues and “it’s extremely important” that they can do so and “hold the government accountable.” He added, “The government hasn’t backed up their national security claims.”
- Boutrous said that restricting access based on publishing classified information “would be retaliation based on content or viewpoint of the speech.”
- The news outlet attorney reiterated the subjective nature of the White House ban, arguing that it was President Donald Trump’s decision. Boutrous noted the president has said he doesn’t like scrutiny of his policies, which points to viewpoint discrimination.
- Kelly pressed news outlets on their argument that the First Amendment protects the publication of classified information and asked whether the government could take similar action against a reporter who published classified information shown to be “very harmful” to national security.
- Boutrous said drawing a line there “would be a very dangerous road to go down” and that a ban for publishing classified information would still be content-based, in violation of the First Amendment.
What the Justice Department said:
- Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that it’s “within the discretion of the president” to remove reporters or news outlets from the White House.
- Velchik said “CNN has been on notice for years” and that Trump has long been calling the outlet “fake news.”
- Velchik also argued the news organization had broken professional norms, claiming that stories contained incorrect quotes and spliced interviews. He said the White House has cited both national security and “trafficking in verifiable falsehoods” as reasons for the ban.
- Velchik disputed the judge’s suggestion that the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success would establish the irreparable harm needed for an injunction. He argued the outlets still receive information through the White House press pool and are not losing revenue because of the ban.
CNN’s Jeremy Herb, Tierney Sneed, Holmes Lybrand and Evan Perez contributed to this report.
Judge digs into lawfulness of banning an outlet for false reporting
Judge Tim Kelly was focused on whether the First Amendment would permit a ban on a news organization for publishing false information. His first line of questioning for CNN attorney Ted Boutrous was about disentangling the White House’s allegations that outlets’ “reporting was false” versus reporting that administration was thought was “not positive for the president.”
Kelly asked whether those two concepts should be viewed the same way under First Amendment law — noting it was “very hard to pull apart” the claims.
Boutrous said both allegations would still amount to viewpoint discrimination. He said that even falsity was a “debatable” issue, particularly if a president claimed that “what you’re saying is false because I don’t like it.”
Kelly pushed on the distinction harder. It may be hard to establish objective falsity if one was reporting that “the vibes were bad” at an event, Kelly noted – a reference to one of the stories the White House citied to justify the ban.
But the judge asked about a journalist who reported the sky was red instead of blue. Boutrous said that scenario was a “closer call” and he emphasized that the stories cited in this case were not anything like that. The attorney warned of “unbridled discrimination” if the administration was able to just declare that a story was false.
Media lawyer says Judge to issue ruling by Tuesday or earlier
Ted Boutros, a lawyer for CNN, MS Now and Politico, told reporters outside US District Court in Washington, DC, that Judge Tim Kelly said to expect a ruling by Tuesday, if not before.
Kelly said in court that he was still weighing a longer-term extension of his ruling blocking aspects of President Donald Trump’s White House of CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.
In the meantime, Kelly briefly extended a temporary order through Tuesday that requires the Trump administration grant those outlets entry to the White House grounds.
Judge asks outlets about First Amendment protections for classified information
In his questioning of the lawyer for the news organizations, Judge Timothy Kelly said he “was struck” by the outlets arguments in their briefing that the First Amendment protects the publication of classified information.
He asked if the government could take action similar to Trump’s press ban in a scenario where a reporter published classified information that is shown to be “very harmful” to the national security.
Media attorney Ted Boutrous said drawing a line there “would be a very dangerous road to go down” and that a ban for publishing classified information would still be content-based, in violation of the First Amendment.
Judge briefly extends CNN’s access to the White House while he considers a longer-term ruling
A federal judge said at the end of a hearing Thursday that he was still weighing whether to extend his ruling blocking aspects of President Donald Trump’s White House ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.
US District Judge Timothy Kelly, however, extended a temporary order through Tuesday that requires the Trump administration grant those outlets entry to the White House grounds.
Media lawyer says Trump “woke up on the wrong side of the bed” and issued ban
Attorney for CNN, MS NOW and Politico Ted Boutrous Jr. reiterated the subjective nature of the White House ban against media outlets and argued that it was President Donald Trump’s decision.
“We know what he decided. He said it over and over again,” Boutrous said. “He issued the ban himself.”
He argued that “the only thing I can come up with” is that the president likely “woke up on the wrong side of the bed” and decided to issue the ban.
Boutrous said that the president has said that he doesn’t like scrutiny of his policies, which points to viewpoint discrimination.
Earlier, Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that it’s “within the discretion of the president” to remove reporters or news outlets from the White House.
Velchik said “CNN has been on notice for years” and that Trump has long been calling the outlet “fake news.”
“Trump doesn’t mind negative press stories if he deserves them,” Velchik added.
Hearing ends without a ruling
The hearing over the attempt by the White House to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico has ended without a ruling from the bench.
Judge Timothy Kelly said to expect a ruling by Tuesday, if not before. The court is officially closed on Monday for the Columbus Day federal holiday.
Judge: Case law suggests news organizations have 'shortcut' to proving irreparable harm
US District Judge Timothy Kelly suggested that if the plaintiffs in the case are likely to be successful in proving one of their claims — whether the news organizations’ due process was violated or their First Amendment rights were violated — that case law suggests they will meet the burden of irreparable harm that’s needed for an injunction.
Kelly said it was “a shortcut to finding they have” irreparable harm if the White House ban stayed in place.
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik disagreed, arguing that the news organization have access to information from the White House because of the White House press pool, and that news organizations like CNN aren’t losing revenues as a result of the ban.
In his temporary restraining order, however, Kelly found that the White House pulled press credentials of CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters without constitutionally adequate due process.
President Donald Trump announced the ban on Truth Social. After the news organizations sued, the White House sent letters to the news organizations alleging they published national security information and acted unprofessionally.
During the hearing, Kelly focused some of his questions on the issue of whether the government can show news outlets have published false information, if they can they cancel access, and whether that be viewpoint discrimination.
Media attorney Ted Boutros responded that it would be illegal viewpoint discrimination.
Velchik argued that the president has power to decide to cancel access because he has made clear the news outlets have published “fake news.”
There are no cameras in the courtroom
We’re not able to stream or show you this hearing because cameras and other recording devices are forbidden in federal court. This restrictions affect court cases across the country, and it’s especially striking today, with a key hearing about First Amendment and free press rights.
Free-speech groups have advocated for camera access for decades to no avail.
It’s rather frustrating and disappointing that the public can’t access these court proceedings except in person or through an unreliable audio line.
On Thursday morning, in fact, the audio line wasn’t working when the CNN, MS NOW, and Politico arguments began — and once it did start to work, the proceedings were difficult to hear.
CNN reporters inside the courtroom are taking notes by hand and we’ll have more to share from them shortly.
DOJ: Trump has put CNN ‘on notice for years’
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that it’s “within the discretion of the president” to remove reporters or news outlets from the White House.
Velchik said “CNN has been on notice for years” and that Trump has long been calling the outlet “fake news.”
The DOJ attorney said: “Trump doesn’t mind negative press stories if he deserves them.”
The Justice Department has argued that CNN, MSNOW and Politico were banned from the White house for national security reasons, even though Trump did not cite national security when he announced the ban last month.
After the news organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the ban, the White House sent letters to the news organizations raising national security concerns about their stories.
The DOJ attorney argued the news organizations had the chance to respond to the White House’s allegations and did not do so.
Velchik also argued that the news organization had broken professional norms, claiming that stories contained incorrect quotes and spliced interviews. He said the White House has cited both national security and “trafficking in verifiable falsehoods” as reasons for the ban.
“We’ve always been clear that it’s not just national security,” Velchik said.
National security reporting holds government accountable, news outlet attorney says
Journalists report on national security issues and “it’s extremely important for reporters to report on that and hold the government accountable,” lead lawyer for CNN, MS NOW and Politico Ted Boutrous Jr. argued.
He cited the report on the Pentagon Papers, the coverage of highly classified Pentagon documents, as an example.
“The government hasn’t backed up their national security claims,” he said, “They haven’t shown that the reports jeopardize national security.”
Boutrous said that if the government raises national security concerns related to reporting, outlets take that into consideration before publishing.
He argued that restricting access based on publishing classified information “would be retaliation based on content or viewpoint of the speech.”
“There was no emergency. Trump’s been saying these things about CNN forever and suddenly there’s an emergency? Boutrous said.
Bureau chiefs from multiple news outlets attend court hearing
Bureau chiefs from several news outlets have shown up in force to the courthouse for Thursday’s hearing. They all declined to comment on the ongoing case.
The hearing has started
A federal judge is hearing arguments today at the request of CNN, MS NOW and Politico to extend his earlier order restoring the outlets’ access to the White House amid President Donald Trump’s attempt to ban them.
We’ll bring you updates as they happen.
Trump wants to pick and choose who asks him questions
This case is much bigger than a White House access fight involving three plaintiffs: It’s about the president trying to pick and choose who can ask him questions, document his presidency and hold him accountable.
Judging from his Truth Social posts and public comments, Trump wants the power to deem real news “fake” and yearns to replace real reporters with pliant propagandists.
This attempt at a ban is part of a broader project to reshape the media and quiet news coverage that’s not exactly to his liking.
The press corps has shown a remarkable amount of solidarity with CNN, MS NOW and Politico, partly because there’s a widespread recognition that other news outlets could be targeted next.
A friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press included 77 news outlets and press advocacy groups as signatories.
On Wednesday night, Fox senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, the current president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, was able to meet with the president on Air Force One to discuss the situation.
The meeting was off the record, but a TV pool note stated that “they discussed his ban on media outlets and she advocated for press access.”
Heinrich declined comment to CNN about the meeting.
In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, she said, “When you empower the president to select who is allowed to ask them questions, it shrinks the room.”
She added, “If Trump’s ban stands, conservative news organizations could find themselves facing similar restrictions the next time a Democrat is in the Oval Office.”
White House argues ban against 3 media outlets should return. Here’s what they’re saying.
Access to the White House is a privilege for outlets, not a right, administration attorneys have argued in their effort for the ban to be re-imposed.
“The President’s actions are lawful under the First Amendment,” the attorneys wrote in a recent filing.
Trump’s attorneys also say that Trump’s ban was not retaliatory and the denial of access to special areas, like the Oval Office and beyond, “is not an adverse action that would objectively chill a reasonable reporter.”
“At the very least, the Government may control reporters’ access to restricted presidential areas, such as the Oval Office, even for viewpoint-discriminatory reasons,” they wrote.
Attorneys for the administration also say the outlets have declined their chance to fight the ban outside of court proceedings, failing to mention the letters sent to the outlets justifying the ban were only sent out after the current lawsuit was filed by the outlets.
They also argued the administration should be permitted to ban outlets who publish sensitive information that violates “decorum.”
“At a bare minimum, it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information,” the attorneys wrote.
Media attorneys argue for a longer pause on Trump’s ban on CNN, MS Now and Politico
In arguing for the ban to be paused as the case proceeds, attorneys for the media outlets have repeatedly said the ban and how it was implemented violates due process and First Amendment rights.
Trump and his administration “imposed the ban in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ First Amendment-protected newsgathering and speech and expressly because they disapprove of the content and editorial viewpoint” of the reporting, the attorneys wrote in their initial filing requesting the short-term pause on the ban continue.
The attorneys have also noted that no notice had been given over what violations the outlets allegedly committed. Instead, the White House sent letters briefly explaining which articles violated newly invented criteria only after the ban was implemented.
While the administration has argued the three outlets published stories that undermined national security, attorneys for the news outlets say the organizations are protected under the First Amendment to “publish stories on important matters affecting national security.”
Attorneys for the outlets have also noted Judge Timothy Kelly’s own remarks in the case’s first hearing in September, that the articles highlighted by the administration appeared to be “routine” stories.
The administration, according to the filings, has also not explained how those articles damaged national security.
DOJ attorney Michael Velchik has been involved in First Amendment cases
The Trump administration attorney in the case, Michael Velchik, has defended some of this White House’s most controversial and politicized decisions, including several that implicate the First Amendment.
Velchik began working for the Justice Department’s civil division only 18 months ago, after working on Capitol Hill for Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, but his portfolio of cases has been prolific.
He has defended the Trump administration’s attempt to strip federal grants from Harvard University — his alma mater — as the sole DOJ lawyer arguing in court in Boston against a large, elite team Harvard had hired. The judge ruled the administration had retaliated against Harvard, in violation of the First Amendment. The massive lawsuit is now on appeal.
Velchik also worked on a speech-related case in Oregon this year, after the Department of Homeland Security tried to prohibit loud noises near — but not on — federal property. Two protesters sued after they were arrested by federal officers for “yelling” through megaphones near federal buildings, but on city sidewalks. The judge found that policy, too, chilled free speech. The DOJ is appealing.
An 11-month wait for ruling in AP press pool case
While lawyers for CNN, MS NOW and Politico are in court fighting President Donald Trump’s attempt to ban the outlets from the White House, there’s a major decision on journalists’ access expected at any time.
Trump sought to ban the Associated Press after it refused to change its style references of the Gulf of Mexico to the Trump rename of “Gulf of America” in early 2025.
At the time, the Trump White House claimed that coverage decision was “divisive” and “dishonest” and banned newswire reporters from events, triggering a First Amendment legal battle. The AP argues the White House ban was a form of viewpoint discrimination and would have chilling effects for the news industry as a whole.
But while the attempt to fully ban the AP was blocked, the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed the White House to bar it from the press pool and certain areas, such as the Oval Office, Mar-a-Lago and Air Force One while the legal case plays out.
That decision hangs on a court finding that some White House spaces are not open to the broader public or large groups of press, and so the White House can choose which journalists it chooses to admit.
The appeals court heard oral arguments last November, but 11 months later has yet to issue a decision. Any ruling the court makes could have a major impact on the CNN, MS NOW and Politico case.
