Trump sought to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. Here’s what happens next

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were allowed back into the White House on Thursday roughly 10 hours after a federal judge temporarily reinstated their press credentials.

But the legal fight over President Donald Trump’s attempt to ban the three outlets from the grounds may continue over the next few weeks at least.

Judge Timothy Kelly’s 1 a.m. ET temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s ban on the three outlets only is scheduled to last 14 days.

Kelly will entertain a request from the media organizations to issue a longer-term order. Questions remain about the ability to of CNN, MS NOW and Politico to participate in other aspects of covering the president and the status of the White House pool .

Meanwhile, Trump’s Justice Department has said in court it wants to overturn a 50-year-old precedent about White House press access.

Here’s what to know:

For now, the case stays before Judge Kelly.

His next step is to decide whether there’s reason and evidence enough for a similar court order – called a preliminary injunction – restoring press access that would stay in place indefinitely as the case plays out.

Kelly is giving the outlets until Monday to file the preliminary injunction request. The Trump administration must respond by Friday, October 2, with a final written submission from the media plaintiffs due by Monday, October 5.

The judge, who was appointed by Trump during in his first term, said he would schedule a hearing at a later date, but he planned to rule “expeditiously.” Kelly’s current court order restoring the outlets’ access expires on October 8.

Samuel Corum/Getty Images North America/Getty Images

CNN, MS NOW and Politico allowed back into the White House after judge orders Trump admin to restore access

Trump has publicly indicated he plans to appeal rulings against him – but procedurally, it’s not possible until the judge decides on the preliminary injunction request.

For Kelly, the Justice Department will be able to build out its arguments in court, or the Trump administration could make other moves around press access at the White House, especially for CNN, MS NOW and Politico.

At the same time, lawyers for the three major outlets are likely to continue documenting the access (or lack of access) that their journalists have to the White House grounds and for covering Trump, arguing to Kelly that they should be able to continue reporting from the White House because of foundational Constitutional protections, including the First Amendment.

Trump can, however, back down and end the court proceeding at any time. That is how prior attempts to ban suspended individual White House press pass holders, including CNN’s Jim Acosta in 2018 , ended.

Kelly has kept the door open for more facts and evidence to come from the White House, especially as the administration tries to argue that letting the three news outlets into the building puts national security at risk.

At a hearing Wednesday, a DOJ attorney pointed to how a relevant precedent contemplated the possibility that the administration could take action against a journalist who had mooned the president on the White House grounds.

“If that’s the case with a specific incident in the Rose Garden, the president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security,” DOJ attorney Michael Velchik said.

Kelly so far has batted down the idea that national security concerns justified the ban, at least with the current examples and set of facts the White House has presented in court.

The judge’s first reason: Trump himself announced he was banning the three news outlets from the White House last Friday because of “alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting.” The president made no mention of national security for days.

“The Court is skeptical – at least on this record – that Defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes,” Kelly wrote.

The administration’s later explanations about the ban after CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued were “ambiguous” on whether they actually were about national security risks, Kelly said.

The judge also noted that the news articles the White House said were risky – about the plans for Trump’s East Wing ballroom, the Iran War, and other topics – are “routine.”

None created such a national security emergency or were so extraordinary that the White House passes needed to be revoked – say, when international narcotics traffickers are moving loot – Kelly said.

Several of the stories weren’t even written by White House-credentialed reporters, and the credential for one CNN reporter was renewed months after she wrote a story the administration now flags as objectionable, the judge added.

And finally, on the national security concerns, the judge noted that it was a Pentagon official the administration relied on in court so far to describe the risk. That public relations official, sitting outside the White House, wouldn’t know how reporters work within the White House.

Trump administration officials “afford no reason to believe that the reporters’ possession of the hard pass was integral to the stories identified,” Kelly wrote.

As the case proceeds, however, the Trump administration can continue to raise its national security concerns and provide additional evidence and examples to the judge.

Trump has already signaled that backing down after an initial loss may not be his administration’s approach this time. Earlier this week, the president claimed that Kelly – whom he appointed to the federal bench nine years ago – would likely rule against him, and vowed to appeal.

Appeals may be necessary if Trump wants to win in court. Kelly in his order on Thursday said he is required to follow 50-year-old case law that says the White House can’t revoke press credentials without due process. A three-judge panel at the appeals court above Kelly, the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals, also can’t overturn the due process requirements set in prior cases.

Yet the Justice Department has said in filings to Kelly already it would like to try to overturn that law.

A 1977 DC Circuit decision that set the law for White House press pass holders to receive due process “is wrong and should be overruled,” a Justice Department attorney argued to Kelly in a filing this week.

The possibility wouldn’t come into play until later rounds of appeals, such as if a case over White House press badges that a presidential administration abruptly revokes goes before the 11 judges of the DC Circuit, which is called sitting en banc. This case could even make its way to the Supreme Court.

While the case continues, there’s one more minor court order the three news outlets must follow: They will have to post bond, just in case a court finds they’re in the wrong. Kelly set how much that bond should be in his order Thursday night.

The judge determined $1.

CNN’s Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

周四，在一名联邦法官暂时恢复了 CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico 的记者的记者证后大约 10 个小时，他们被允许重返白宫。

但围绕唐纳德·特朗普总统试图禁止这三家媒体进入该场地的法律斗争，至少在接下来的几周内可能会继续下去。

美国东部时间凌晨 1 点，蒂莫西·凯利法官发布临时限制令，阻止特朗普对这三家媒体的禁令生效，该限制令预计将持续 14 天。

凯利将考虑媒体机构提出的发布长期禁令的请求。目前仍存在一些问题，例如CNN、MS NOW和Politico是否能够参与总统报道的其他方面，以及白宫记者团的状况。

与此同时，特朗普的司法部在法庭上表示，希望推翻一项关于白宫媒体采访权限的50年先例。

以下是您需要了解的内容：

目前，该案仍由凯利法官审理。

他的下一步是决定是否有足够的理由和证据来颁布类似的法院命令（称为初步禁令），以恢复新闻媒体的采访权限，该权限将在案件审理期间无限期地保持有效。

凯利法官要求各媒体在周一之前提交初步禁令申请。特朗普政府必须在10月2日（周五）之前作出回应，而媒体原告方的最终书面陈述则必须在10月5日（周一）之前提交。

这位法官是特朗普在其第一任期内任命的，他表示将择日举行听证会，但计划“尽快”作出裁决。凯利法官目前恢复这些媒体采访权限的法院命令将于10月8日到期。

Samuel Corum/Getty Images North America/Getty Images

在法官下令特朗普政府恢复其访问权限后，CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico 获准重返白宫。

特朗普已公开表示他计划对不利于他的裁决提出上诉——但从程序上讲，在法官对初步禁令请求作出决定之前，这是不可能的。

对于凯利来说，司法部将能够在法庭上展开辩论，或者特朗普政府可能会就白宫的媒体准入问题采取其他行动，特别是针对 CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico 等媒体。

与此同时，三大媒体的律师可能会继续记录他们的记者进入白宫场地和报道特朗普的情况（或缺乏进入白宫场地的情况），并向凯利辩称，由于包括第一修正案在内的基本宪法保护，他们应该能够继续在白宫进行报道。

然而，特朗普随时可以撤回诉讼并终止诉讼程序。此前，他曾多次试图禁止持有被吊销白宫记者证的个人进入白宫，包括2018年CNN记者吉姆·阿科斯塔的案例，最终都是如此告终。

凯利一直表示，白宫方面愿意提供更多事实和证据，尤其是在政府试图辩称允许这三家新闻媒体进入白宫大楼会危及国家安全的情况下。

在周三的听证会上，司法部一名律师指出，相关的先例考虑了政府可以对在白宫草坪上向总统露出屁股的记者采取行动的可能性。

“如果玫瑰园发生的事件确实如此，总统应该能够立即采取行动保护国家安全，”司法部律师迈克尔·韦尔奇克说。

到目前为止，凯利一直驳斥国家安全考虑足以证明禁令合理性的说法，至少就白宫在法庭上提出的例子和事实而言是如此。

法官给出的第一个理由是：特朗普本人上周五宣布，他禁止这三家新闻媒体进入白宫，理由是“原告的报道缺乏真实性且带有负面色彩”。此后数日，总统对国家安全问题只字未提。

“法院对此表示怀疑——至少就目前的记录而言——被告维护国家安全的利益是否是撤销原告通行证的真正动机，或者是否真的有助于推进这一行为，”凯利写道。

凯利表示，在 CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico 提起诉讼后，政府后来对禁令的解释“含糊不清”，没有明确说明禁令是否真的与国家安全风险有关。

法官还指出，白宫所说的那些有风险的新闻报道——关于特朗普东翼宴会厅的计划、伊朗战争和其他话题——都是“例行公事”。

凯利说，没有哪起事件造成了国家安全紧急状况，也没有哪起事件非同寻常到需要撤销白宫通行证——比如国际毒品贩运者转移赃物。

法官补充说，其中几篇报道甚至都不是白宫认证记者撰写的，而且一名 CNN 记者在撰写了一篇被政府现在视为有问题的报道几个月后，其认证仍然得到续签。

最后，关于国家安全方面的担忧，法官指出，迄今为止，政府在法庭上依赖的是一位五角大楼官员来描述风险。这位坐在白宫外的公关官员，根本不了解白宫内部记者的工作方式。

凯利写道：“特朗普政府官员没有任何理由相信记者持有通行证与所报道的故事密不可分。”

然而，随着案件的进展，特朗普政府可以继续提出其国家安全方面的担忧，并向法官提供更多证据和例子。

特朗普已经暗示，这次他的政府可能不会在初败后就退缩。本周早些时候，总统声称，他九年前任命的联邦法官凯利很可能会做出对他不利的判决，并誓言要提起上诉。

如果特朗普想在法庭上胜诉，上诉或许是必要的。凯利法官周四发布的命令称，他必须遵守已有50年历史的判例法，该判例法规定白宫不得在未经过正当程序的情况下撤销记者证。凯利法官的上级上诉法院——哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法院——的三名法官组成的合议庭也无权推翻先前判例中确立的正当程序要求。

然而，司法部已经在提交给凯利的文件中表示，它希望推翻这项法律。

司法部一名律师本周在一份文件中向凯利辩称，1977 年哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的一项裁决确立了白宫记者证持有者享有正当程序的权利，“是错误的，应该被推翻”。

这种可能性要到后续几轮上诉才会显现，例如，如果总统行政部门突然撤销白宫记者证的案件提交到哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的11名法官面前（即全体法官合议庭审理），该案甚至有可能最终上诉至最高法院。

案件仍在审理中，这三家新闻机构还必须遵守一项次要的法庭命令：他们必须缴纳保释金，以防法庭认定他们有罪。凯利法官在周四晚上的命令中规定了保释金的金额。

法官裁定金额为 1 美元。

CNN的蒂尔尼·斯尼德对本报道亦有贡献。