WASHINGTON: CNN, Politico and MS NOW have asked a federal court for an emergency hearing, saying some of their journalists were still denied access to the White House despite a judge’s order temporarily blocking the administration’s ban on the three media organizations.
The outlets said in a court filing Thursday that their journalists attempted to enter the White House but were turned away, with some press credentials reportedly confiscated. Other employees from the same organizations were allowed to enter, creating uncertainty over whether the restrictions resulted from an administrative delay or continued enforcement of the ban.
The dispute escalated only hours after US District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order requiring the Trump administration to immediately restore access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico.
Judge Temporarily Blocks White House Press Ban
Judge Timothy Kelly ruled early Thursday that the administration must restore the outlets’ access for 14 days while the broader legal challenge proceeds.
In his ruling, Kelly found that the journalists were likely deprived of constitutionally protected rights without adequate due process. The order directed the administration to return and reinstate their White House press credentials.
The ruling followed a hearing in which lawyers for the three media organizations challenged the administration’s decision to remove their access.
The legal dispute centers in part on whether the government can revoke established White House press access without providing journalists with constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to respond. CBS News reported that Kelly referred to previous federal cases concerning journalists’ access to government officials and due-process protections.
Despite the overnight court order, journalists from all three outlets reported difficulties entering the White House on Thursday morning.
CNN said senior White House reporter Betsy Klein was among those denied entry, while a CNN producer was able to enter. Politico reported that one of its reporters was denied access and had his press credentials confiscated. MS NOW said White House reporter Laura Barrón-López and a producer were barred, while another MS NOW producer was permitted to enter.
The outlets subsequently asked Judge Kelly for an emergency hearing, arguing that the court’s order was not being implemented.
The Washington Post reported that the media organizations said the White House had “repeatedly violated” the order.
It was not immediately clear whether the access problems reflected an administrative lag as White House officials worked to implement the ruling or represented continued enforcement of the original restrictions.
President Donald Trump initially said he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico because of what he described as “fake news” and reporting he characterized as false.
The administration later presented national security as a justification for the restrictions, according to reporting on the court proceedings.
The three media organizations have rejected the ban and argued that the government’s action violated their constitutional protections.
The outlets filed their lawsuit earlier in the week after their reporters were prevented from entering the White House and their credentials were deactivated or confiscated.
The dispute comes as Trump prepares to host Chinese President Xi Jinping at the White House, adding significance to the question of which news organizations will have access to cover the president’s activities.
CNN was expected to have a role in television pool coverage of the president’s events. The outlets told the court that the timing made an immediate resolution important. Axios reported that the media organizations specifically cited the scheduled visit by Xi Jinping in their request for an expedited hearing.
The controversy has also affected cooperation among other news organizations.
Several major television networks previously suspended or restricted distribution of White House video coverage in solidarity with the three outlets after the ban was announced. More than 50 media organizations also filed an amicus brief supporting the lawsuit, according to reporting on the case.
Legal Battle Over White House Press Access
The latest dispute is part of a broader legal battle over the government’s authority to control access to the White House press operation.
The three outlets argue that the administration cannot remove established journalists from White House coverage based on disagreement with their reporting. The administration, meanwhile, has defended its decision and cited its concerns about the reporting and national security.
Judge Kelly’s order does not resolve the underlying case. Instead, it temporarily restores access while the litigation continues.
The emergency hearing request now puts the immediate implementation of the court’s order at the center of the dispute. The White House and Justice Department may seek further legal action as the case proceeds.
For CNN, Politico and MS NOW, the immediate issue is whether their journalists will be able to resume regular White House coverage under the temporary court order.
FAQs
Why did CNN, Politico and MS NOW seek an emergency hearing?
The three outlets said some of their journalists were still denied access to the White House after Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the administration to temporarily restore their access.
What did Judge Timothy Kelly order?
Kelly issued a 14-day temporary restraining order requiring the administration to restore the outlets’ White House press access and credentials.
Why did Trump ban the three media outlets?
Trump initially cited what he called “fake news” and reporting he considered false. The administration later cited national security as part of its justification.
Were all CNN, Politico and MS NOW employees denied entry?
No. Reports indicated that some employees were denied access while others from the same organizations were allowed into the White House.
Has the court case been resolved?
No. Judge Kelly’s ruling temporarily restores access while the broader legal dispute continues.
