A US District Judge, appointed by President Trump, expressed significant skepticism regarding the administration's arguments for banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House. The judge questioned due process, the rationale for the ban, and the administration's national security claims, extending a temporary order while he deliberates on a preliminary injunction.
During an hour-plus hearing, US District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, repeatedly signaled skepticism about the Trump administration's justification for banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House. The judge did not issue a final ruling but extended his temporary restraining order, requiring the White House to grant the journalists access, while he prepares a decision on a preliminary injunction, expected by Tuesday. Kelly focused heavily on due process concerns, questioning the lack of advance notice for the ban, stating that such immediate action is typically reserved for 'hair on fire' situations, which seemed 'more attenuated' in this case. He also highlighted the 'unusual' discrepancy between President Trump's public reasons for the ban (negative coverage) and the Justice Department's court filings (national security), calling it an 'uphill climb' for the government. While somewhat open to national security bans in specific contexts, Kelly was skeptical of its application here. He also probed the First Amendment implications of banning outlets for publishing 'false' information, asking how to differentiate it from simply 'not positive' coverage. Media attorneys argued that both constituted viewpoint discrimination, warning against 'unbridled discrimination.' The Justice Department, however, maintained that banning for false stories would not be illegal viewpoint discrimination, suggesting a broad definition of falsity including anonymous sources or unverified quotes. Judge Kelly's eventual ruling is likely to face an appeal.
