A judge heard arguments Wednesday but did not rule from the bench in a case on President Trump's ban of three news outlets from White House grounds. The hearing marked the latest development in an extraordinary showdown between Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes, the AP reports. Trump banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico beginning Friday, assailing what he called "fake news." More recently, the president has said negative coverage was dangerous for the country. The outlets argued they were singled out because of the content of their coverage—in other words, viewpoint discrimination—and called the ban a "blatant violation" of the First Amendment.
US District Judge Timothy Kelly—whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist's access restored in a similar case in 2018—didn't immediately rule on the news outlets' request for a restraining order. It was unclear when he would issue a decision, though the New York Times notes that he appeared skeptical of the administration's arguments on Wednesday and issued a restraining order within two days of hearing arguments in the 2018 case. Kelly said he would issue a ruling "as soon as possible."
- The judge opened by reminding both sides that he's required to apply case precedent. The rulings in two prior cases over press access—including one that went to the US Supreme Court—made clear that journalists were entitled to an opportunity to be heard before they have their press passes revoked. Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that the rulings in the earlier cases were wrong. "Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but currently as a district judge I have to apply them," Kelly said.
- Arguments began with Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the outlets, calling the ban an "unprecedented, unreasonable punishment" and saying there was "not a semblance of due process." Velchik told the court that "access to the White House is a privilege, not a right." "The president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security," he added.
- In a filing late Tuesday, administration lawyers argued that the ban does not violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to a free press. It contended that the outlets, in their reporting, violated "standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House complex, including by trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues and publishing sensitive or classified information."
- Boutros countered that the national security issue wasn't raised until days after the bans, the Times reports. He argued that the issue, which Trump emphasized on Tuesday, was being used as retroactive justification for bans the president issued to retaliate against the outlets. "I guess the lightbulb went off and they all said, 'Start talking about national security,'" he said.
- An amicus brief was filed by other news groups Wednesday, urging the court to immediately restore the three outlets' White House access. The brief—filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the White House Correspondents' Association, and 49 media outlets and industry groups, including the AP, the New York Times and Reuters—says "the targeted expulsion of news media from White House grounds injures the public interest" and that "unassailable First Amendment law makes any viewpoint-based decision to bar reporters from a nonpublic forum constitutionally repugnant."
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
