WASHINGTON — A federal judge will rule in the coming days on whether the Trump administration can legally rescind White House press passes for journalists at three news organizations, or if those reporters will be able to continue accessing the grounds while the case continues.
U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Timothy J. Kelly said at the end of a Thursday hearing he intends to issue his decision on a preliminary injunction in the press freedom case before Tuesday.
Kelly, appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, granted the news organizations — CNN, MS Now and Politico — a temporary restraining order in late September, forcing the White House to return press passes it had confiscated and permit the reporters back into the complex.
A preliminary injunction, which the administration could appeal, would replace the short-term temporary restraining order that generally cannot be appealed to a higher court. The TRO was set to expire Thursday, but Kelly extended it through Tuesday.
Viewpoint discrimination alleged
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., a partner at Gibson Dunn who represents the three news organizations in the case, argued during the hearing the president’s decision to ban the reporters was a clear example of viewpoint discrimination and violated the First Amendment.
“The president got up on the wrong side of the bed and declared a ban on these news organizations,” he said.
Trump posted on social media in mid-September he intended to block journalists at the news organizations from using their White House press passes to enter the grounds.
“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America,” he wrote at the time. “Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”
Trump and administration officials later said they had concerns about the types of national security articles published by the news organizations.
But Boutrous said during the hearing the ban was clearly about the president’s belief he should receive more positive news coverage.
“He has been clear that the reason for this ban is he doesn’t want scrutiny of his policies,” Boutrous said.
Administration questions journalistic standards
Michael Velchik, senior counsel in the civil division of the Justice Department, argued the decision to ban the news organizations was not solely based on national security but grievances with their journalistic standards.
“He set out both of those independent concerns,” Velchik said, referring to the president.
Velchik said he believed that “publishing national security information and not running it by the government clearly violates journalistic standards.”
Velchik also said the letters administration officials sent to the news organizations after the ban took effect gave them the opportunity to rebut the administration’s claims about their reporters. He said that none of the three chose “to respond to any of the substantive concerns.”
“We did provide a process and they chose not to participate,” he said.
