Judge Hears CNN, Politico Fight to Get Back Into Trump's White House — But Won't Rule Yet
A federal judge who once ordered Jim Acosta's press pass restored heard arguments from CNN, MS NOW and Politico over their revoked White House access, but held off on a ruling.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Wednesday heard arguments over whether the Trump White House illegally stripped press credentials from CNN, MS NOW and Politico, but ended the hearing without issuing a ruling, saying only that he plans to decide "soon."
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, is weighing a request from the three outlets for a temporary restraining order that would immediately restore the access the administration revoked. The case, Cable News Network Inc. v. Trump, was filed jointly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
A familiar judge, a familiar fight
Kelly is no stranger to this exact dispute. In 2018, he ordered the White House to restore CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's credentials after the first Trump administration revoked them — a precedent both sides invoked repeatedly during Wednesday's hearing, according to coverage from ABC7 News.
ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT
That's the Justice Department's core argument, laid out by government attorneys who urged Kelly to deny the restraining order. Lawyers for CNN, MS NOW and Politico countered that their credentials were pulled without notice, without explanation and without any chance to challenge the decision — and that the real motive was retaliation for coverage the president branded as "negative."
Kelly reportedly pressed the government's lawyers on the constitutional implications of singling out specific outlets over the content of their reporting, and multiple outlets covering the hearing described him as openly skeptical of the ban's legal footing.
What happens now
Reporters for the three organizations remain locked out of White House grounds while Kelly deliberates. President Trump has said he would appeal if the judge sides against the administration, setting up the possibility of a prolonged legal fight regardless of Wednesday's outcome.
Press freedom groups are watching the case closely as a test of how far a White House can go in picking and choosing which journalists get access to cover it — and the Acosta precedent hangs over the proceedings as a reminder that this fight has played out, and been lost by the administration, once before.