Court extends protection for several US media outlets

Freedom of the press

Court extends protection for several US media outlets

A federal judge temporarily protects CNN, Politico and MS NOW from being banned from the White House. But the fundamental question is still open.

In the dispute over the exclusion of several US media outlets from the White House, a federal judge has ruled, according to reports from the administration of President Donald Trump Limits have been set again for the time being. Judge Timothy Kelly extended the judicial protection for on Tuesday (local time). CNNPolitico and the news channel MS NOW, thereby preventing their journalists from being completely banned from the White House grounds again.

With the new order, a final decision on the constitutionality of the media ban has not yet been made. The three media outlets had applied for longer-term protection from a ban after the judge temporarily ordered the restoration of their press cards at the end of September. This interim order would have expired on Tuesday.

“President Trump likely barred the plaintiffs from the White House because he believes their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him,” Kelly wrote, according to CNN. Trump’s revocation of press credentials could constitute a measure “that would discourage a reasonable reporter or news organization from publishing stories to which he objects,” CBS quoted Kelly as saying.

Trump announced in mid-September that he would ban CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House because of what he saw as false and one-sided reporting. The media then sued and accused the government, among other things, of punishing them for their reporting and thereby violating press freedom.

Kelly had already determined in his first decision at the end of September that the media was likely to be successful, at least with their objection about a lack of due process. He referred to decades-old jurisprudence of the for Washington competent appeal court. According to this, press credentials for the White House cannot be revoked without clear rules, prior warning and due process.

There is a larger constitutional question behind the dispute. The government is challenging a law that has been in place since 1977 that protects accredited journalists from arbitrary deprivation of their access to the White House. She argues that the greater leeway that a court temporarily granted the president in a separate case in June for particularly restricted areas such as Air Force One and the Oval Office should also be extended to access to the White House overall.

However, Kelly does not have to decide on this in principle. As a federal judge of first instance, he is bound by the current decisions of the appeals court. The government has already announced that it will challenge this case law in an appeal if necessary.