THE DAILY BS: HOW MUCH CAN YOU HANDLE?
SPARE ME THE BS (I’ve got things to do).
- A federal judge appointed by Trump blocked the White House from excluding CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters while their lawsuit continues.
- Judge Timothy Kelly found the outlets likely to succeed on constitutional free-speech and due-process claims involving revoked press credentials.
- But Kelly explicitly declined to dismiss Trump’s complaints about media fairness, saying the ruling shouldn’t be read as proof those concerns were unfounded.
LAY IT ON ME (I’ve got time).
President Donald Trump lost another courtroom round in his battle with CNN, MS NOW and Politico.
But the judge who ruled against him included an acknowledgment that might surprise anyone expecting a judicial endorsement of the news organizations’ reporting.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed to the federal bench, issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday preventing the White House from enforcing its ban on reporters from the three outlets.
The ruling preserves their access while a constitutional lawsuit proceeds.
Kelly found that the news organizations were likely to succeed on claims involving the First Amendment’s free-speech protections and the Fifth Amendment’s due-process requirements.
The case began after Trump announced in September that reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico would lose their White House access. Trump had criticized their coverage as fake news. The outlets argued that the administration was punishing journalists because the president disliked their reporting. Government lawyers countered that White House access is a privilege and that the president must be able to protect national security and respond to misinformation.
Kelly found that the administration had not provided the reporters with adequate warning or a meaningful opportunity to challenge the loss of their credentials. He also questioned the administration’s national-security justification, noting that Trump’s initial public explanation focused on the outlets’ reporting.
The judge concluded that the restrictions affected 78 journalists and threatened their ability to cover the White House on the same basis as competing news organizations.
But Kelly also made a distinction that deserves attention.
He wrote that his ruling should not be interpreted as a finding that Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness in media coverage were unfounded. He also acknowledged that the government has legitimate authority to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.
That’s an important separation between two questions that often get mashed together in political arguments.
Whether major news organizations report fairly is one issue. Whether the government followed constitutional rules when revoking their access is another.
Kelly ruled on the second question.
The preliminary injunction extends an earlier temporary order and will remain in effect while the lawsuit proceeds, unless modified by further court action.
The White House can continue challenging the decision through the legal process.
For the three news organizations, it’s a courtroom victory. For Trump, it’s a setback on access — but not a judicial declaration that his criticisms of their reporting are baseless. That distinction may be the most interesting part of the ruling.
DBS WIRE SOURCES (I’ve got all day).
- Associated Press — Judge extends order blocking White House press ban
- CBS News — Judge blocks Trump’s White House ban targeting CNN, MS NOW and Politico
- Deadline — Judge rules administration cannot resume ban on three news outlets
- Washington Post — Judge extends order blocking White House press ban (Associated Press report)
