\n<\/p>\n
A federal judge on Tuesday extended an order blocking President Donald Trump’s administration from banning reporters<\/a> for three news outlets from the White House, a pivotal operational development for the organizations as the extraordinary case \u2014 pitting the president against the media that cover him \u2014 makes its way through the legal system.<\/p>\n In a victory for media organizations at a time when tension between the White House and journalists is high, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled that CNN, MS NOW and Politico are likely to succeed in their constitutional free speech and due process claims.<\/p>\n \u201cStill,\u201d he added in his late-night order, \u201cno one should interpret the Court\u2019s decision to suggest that President Trump\u2019s concerns about accuracy and fairness in the media\u2019s reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.\u201d<\/p>\n But Kelly agreed with the plaintiffs that the national security arguments came after the fact and were unsupported by the administration. <\/p>\n The judge also wrote that without a preliminary injunction the outlets \u201care likely to suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest tip in their favor.\u201d<\/p>\n An email to the Justice Department, which is arguing the case on behalf of the administration, was not immediately returned. The White House also did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment.<\/p>\n Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the three media organizations, hailed the judge’s ruling. <\/p>\n \u201cWhen the President issued his \u2018ban on the free press,\u2019 he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment,\u201d Boutrous said in a statement. \u201cThe harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The Court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this \u2018unconstitutional ban on the free press\u2019 for the foreseeable future.\u201d<\/p>\n Kelly, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, previously ordered<\/a> the White House to restore the reporters\u2019 \u201chard pass\u201d press credentials while he weighed their claims. With that temporary order expiring Tuesday, the judge issued a preliminary injunction that preserves the status quo indefinitely while the case is pending.<\/p>\n Kelly said that, \u201cto put it mildly,\u201d the White House didn\u2019t give the plaintiffs any warning that they were in danger of losing their hard passes before Trump\u2019s Sept. 18 social media post about their bans.<\/p>\n The judge also said the impact of the White House ban goes far beyond a single reporter’s ability to do their job.<\/p>\n \u201cThe ban threatens to cut off all Plaintiffs\u2019 access to the White House press area\u2014a space open to many of their competitors\u2014thereby restricting their ability to observe happenings there firsthand, immediately report on those activities, and try to engage with government officials,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n Hard passes give journalists who regularly cover the White House longer term access to its campus without having to get permission ahead of time.<\/p>\n The government asked Kelly to suspend his own decision pending an appeal, but the judge said it didn\u2019t justify that request. Kelly said the bans impacted a total of 78 reporters at the three news organizations.<\/p>\n Trump provided no notice before announcing the bans in a Sept. 18 social media post, which criticized their reporting as \u201cfake news.\u201d Kelly temporarily blocked the bans on Sept. 24 at the request of the news outlets, which jointly filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C.<\/p>\n Attorneys for the outlets have described Trump\u2019s move<\/a> as \u201cunprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional\u201d under the First and Fifth amendments. They argued that it\u2019s illegal for Trump to punish the journalists because he doesn\u2019t like the content of their reporting.<\/p>\n \u201cThe ban also inflicts an injury on all news media organizations \u2014 which now risk a similar fate if they engage in fact-based, independent reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable,\u201d plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers wrote.<\/p>\n Government lawyers argued that access to the White House is a privilege \u2014 not a right \u2014 and said the president can impose the bans to protect national security and to stem the spread of misinformation.<\/p>\n \u201cThe White House is the official residence and workplace of the President,\u201d Justice Department attorneys wrote<\/a>. \u201cPresidents have had a relationship with the press since the beginning. They have long decided which journalists should receive privileged access, which has varied substantially from administration to administration.\u201d<\/p>\n ___<\/p>\n Associated Press reporter Rebecca Boone contributed. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n