A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order on September 24, 2026, requiring the Trump administration to reinstate White House press passes for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico after the outlets were barred from the complex. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled that the media ban was likely unconstitutional, ordering the administration to restore credentials for 14 days while the legal fight continues.
White House Press Pass Bans Spark Federal Lawsuit and Temporary Restraining Order
The legal battle began after President Donald Trump announced on September 18 that the three news organizations, which he labeled as “fake news,” would be banned from the White House complex. The outlets filed their lawsuit on September 21, leading to the first court hearing on September 23 and the early morning ruling on September 24. Despite the judge’s order, the media organizations reported remaining unable to enter the complex during the morning arrival of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit, though reporters stated they were let back in around noon.
Legal Arguments and Court Precedent
The federal lawsuit contends that the White House spaces from which the reporters were banned function as nonpublic forums, making the restrictions a violation of First Amendment speech protections. The complaint also asserts that the Trump administration violated Fifth Amendment due process rights by failing to provide clear standards and an opportunity to be heard before revoking access.
In his ruling, Judge Kelly did not address the First Amendment claims, basing his decision instead on the Fifth Amendment arguments. Kelly stated that he is bound “full stop” by the 1977 precedent set in Sherrill v. Knight. That federal appeals court ruling established that the White House cannot arbitrarily deny press passes to reporters based on the content of their coverage when the facilities have been voluntarily opened to the media.
Ahead of the judge’s order, Trump stated that he expected a ruling in favor of the news outlets and confirmed that the administration would appeal if so. Judge Kelly instructed CNN, MS NOW, and Politico to file their requests by September 28 for an extension beyond the initial 14-day temporary restraining order. The Trump administration must reply by October 2, with final replies from the news outlets due October 5.
Administration Response and Broader Media Stance
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly defended the administration’s actions in an email to USA TODAY on September 24, dismissing the legal challenge as “performative outrage.” She pointed to the administration’s earlier decision to transfer control of the press pool from the White House Correspondents’ Association, asserting that the move opened greater “coverage opportunities to new media outlets.”
“President Trump is the most accessible and transparent President in history, and all White House correspondents appreciate his willingness to take questions from the press almost every day, regardless of what they try to claim publicly,” Anna Kelly said.
Press advocacy groups and First Amendment experts have condemned the ban. Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told USA TODAY on September 25 that the restriction is “all intended less to win in court and more to intimidate … and make journalists think twice about reporting critically on the administration.”
Legal analysts have also contextualized the press ban within the administration’s wider actions against media figures and broadcasters. Dan Greenberg, a senior legal fellow at the Cato Institute, pointed to ongoing FCC warnings directed at journalists, a legal dispute involving late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel, and Trump’s August assertion that “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker would be reported to the FCC for punishment due to alleged inaccuracies. NBC previously stated it stood by Welker, while legal experts noted that such regulatory penalties would conflict with existing law.