CNN, Politico and MS NOW have asked a federal judge for an emergency hearing after their journalists were denied access to the White House following an order requiring officials to restore their press credentials.
The three news organisations told US District Judge Timothy Kelly on Thursday that the Trump administration had not complied with the Court Allows SpaceX South Texas Land Exchange | Lawyer Monthly he issued hours earlier.
Kelly ordered White House officials to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” hard-pass credentials revoked from employees of CNN, MS NOW and Politico. The order remains in force for 14 days while the outlets pursue their CNN, MS NOW and Politico Sue Over White House Press Ban – Lawyer Monthly
Despite the ruling, journalists from all three organisations said they were turned away when they attempted to enter the White House on Thursday. The outlets then asked Kelly to hold an emergency follow-up hearing.
Their filing says the administration has not yet complied with the court’s order. That allegation has not yet resulted in a judicial finding that officials deliberately violated or defied the ruling.
The dispute began after President Donald Trump announced on September 18 that CNN, Politico and MS NOW would no longer be permitted on White House grounds.
The organisations sued, arguing that the bans violated the First Amendment protections for speech and the press as well as the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Kelly’s temporary ruling did not finally decide those claims.
Instead, he found that the outlets were likely to succeed on their due-process argument because the affected journalists had not received constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to respond before their credentials were revoked.
The judge also expressed scepticism about the administration’s national-security justification.
Kelly said the record preceding the lawsuit did not indicate that national security had motivated the revocations. He contrasted that argument with Trump’s public comments focusing on what the president considered inaccurate or negative reporting by the organisations.
Justice Department lawyers have defended the restrictions, arguing that White House access is a privilege rather than a right and that the administration has legitimate interests in professionalism, decorum and protecting sensitive information.
The White House Press Office subsequently sent letters to the three organisations setting out reasons for revoking their credentials and providing an opportunity to respond.
Kelly nevertheless concluded at this preliminary stage that the procedure used before the original revocations was likely constitutionally inadequate.
The emergency request now creates a distinct legal issue from the underlying challenge to the ban.
The court may have to determine whether the temporary order has been implemented and whether further judicial action is necessary to secure compliance. The outlets’ filing does not by itself establish contempt or intentional disobedience of the order.
For media-law practitioners, the case raises two related questions: what US Supreme Court Backs Trump v. Barbara – Lawyer Monthly apply once White House press credentials have been granted, and how far the executive branch can restrict access based on concerns about a news organisation’s conduct or reporting.
The temporary restraining order lasts only 14 days. The broader First Amendment and due-process claims remain unresolved, and Kelly has not issued a final judgment on the legality of the restrictions.
The immediate dispute is narrower: whether CNN, Politico and MS NOW receive the White House access the court ordered while the litigation continues.