Judge to hear arguments on CNN’s request to extend order freezing White House press ban

• A federal judge will hear arguments this morning on the request by 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.

• 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.

• In late September, Trump announced he was barring the three outlets from covering him at the White House, citing their “negative stories.” CNN, MS NOW and Politico quickly sued, and won back temporary access.

White House argues ban against 3 media outlets should return. Here’s what they’re saying.

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

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

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

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.

State of play for the White House press pool

Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty Images

Since the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, White House reporters, photographers and technicians have utilized a system to cover the American president wherever he goes by assigning a small group — the pool — to act as representatives of the larger press corps.

The arrangement solves both a space problem — only so many reporters can fit into the Oval Office or Air Force One — and a financial one: it gets expensive to field teams at the White House and on the road every day, particularly for smaller outlets.

Pool reporters were in Warm Springs, Georgia, when Roosevelt died ; in Dallas when J ohn F. Kennedy was assassinated ; outside the Washington Hilton when Ronald Reagan was shot and aboard Air Force One when George Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump made secret visits to far-flung war zones.

However, with President Donald Trump’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico, the pool system is under threat.

While CNN was recently allowed to serve as the TV pool representative on its assigned day, that has been inconsistent and there have been limitations on access. The White House has repeatedly barred CNN from traveling on Air Force One on those days, appearing to justify those new restrictions by saying that access to the White House complex is different than access to tight spaces like Air Force One.

Last week, when reporters from TIME asked if Trump was ignoring the court order, Trump said no, and then communications director Steven Cheung piped in: “The judge basically ordered them to renew their access back to the White House, but that’s different than allowing the pool into the events in the Oval Office or on Air Force One.”

• 今天上午，一位联邦法官将听取 CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico 提出的延长其先前命令的请求的辩论。该命令恢复了这三家媒体进入白宫的权限，此前唐纳德·特朗普总统试图禁止它们进入白宫。

• 本周，各新闻机构的律师表示，白宫没有提供任何新的证据来支持其反复声称新闻媒体的报道危及国家安全的说法。

• 9月下旬，特朗普宣布禁止这三家媒体在白宫对他进行报道，理由是它们发布了“负面报道”。CNN、MS NOW和Politico迅速提起诉讼，并重新获得了临时采访权。

白宫认为应该恢复对三家媒体的禁令。以下是他们的说法。

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

政府律师辩称，媒体进入白宫是一种特权，而不是一项权利，以此来争取重新实施禁令。

律师们在最近提交的一份文件中写道：“总统的行为符合宪法第一修正案的规定。”

特朗普的律师还表示，特朗普的禁令并非报复行为，拒绝记者进入椭圆形办公室等特殊区域“并非客观上会对理性记者造成寒蝉效应的不利行为”。

他们写道：“至少，政府可以控制记者进入总统专属区域，例如椭圆形办公室，即使这是出于观点歧视的原因。”

政府的律师还表示，这些媒体放弃了在法庭程序之外对抗禁令的机会，但却没有提及向这些媒体发送的、解释禁令合理性的信件是在这些媒体提起当前诉讼之后才发出的。

他们还认为，政府应该被允许禁止发布违反“礼仪”的敏感信息的媒体。

律师们写道：“公布机密和敏感的国家安全信息，至少可以说是严重违反礼仪的行为。”

媒体律师们呼吁延长特朗普对CNN、MS Now和Politico的禁令暂停期限。

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

在要求暂停禁令以等待案件审理期间，媒体机构的律师反复表示，该禁令及其执行方式违反了正当程序和第一修正案权利。

律师们在最初提交的请求继续短期暂停禁令的文件中写道，特朗普及其政府“实施禁令是为了报复原告受宪法第一修正案保护的新闻采集和言论自由，并且明确表示他们不赞成报道的内容和编辑观点”。

律师们还指出，白宫事先并未告知这些媒体涉嫌违反了哪些规定。相反，禁令实施后，白宫才匆匆致函，简要说明哪些文章违反了新制定的标准。

虽然政府方面辩称这三家媒体发表的报道损害了国家安全，但这些新闻机构的律师表示，根据宪法第一修正案，这些机构有权“发表有关影响国家安全的重要事项的报道”。

这些媒体的律师还指出，蒂莫西·凯利法官在9月份该案的第一次听证会上曾表示，政府重点报道的文章似乎是“例行”新闻。

根据提交的文件，政府方面也没有解释这些条款是如何损害国家安全的。

白宫记者团的最新动态

Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty Images

自富兰克林·罗斯福时代以来，白宫记者、摄影师和技术人员一直采用一种系统来报道美国总统的行踪，即指派一小群人——记者团——作为更广泛的新闻界的代表。

这种安排既解决了空间问题——椭圆形办公室或空军一号能容纳的记者数量有限——又解决了财务问题：每天在白宫和各地派出团队进行报道成本很高，尤其是对于规模较小的媒体而言。

罗斯福去世时，随行记者在佐治亚州温泉城；肯尼迪遇刺时，随行记者在达拉斯；里根总统遇刺时，随行记者在华盛顿希尔顿酒店外；乔治·布什、巴拉克·奥巴马和唐纳德·特朗普秘密访问遥远战区时，随行记者在空军一号上。

然而，随着唐纳德·特朗普总统禁止 CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico 的播出，媒体联播系统正面临威胁。

虽然CNN最近被允许在指定日期作为电视媒体联席记者团的代表，但这种安排并不稳定，而且记者的采访权限也受到限制。白宫曾多次禁止CNN在这些日期乘坐空军一号，并似乎以白宫建筑群的准入权限与空军一号等狭小空间的准入权限不同为由，为这些新的限制辩护。

上周，《时代》杂志的记者问特朗普是否无视法院命令时，特朗普回答说没有，然后通讯主任史蒂文·张插话道：“法官基本上命令他们恢复进入白宫的权限，但这与允许媒体记者进入椭圆形办公室或空军一号上的活动是不同的。”