Three major news organizations are taking the Trump administration to court after it barred their reporters from the White House.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke their journalists’ access to the White House grounds, arguing that the move violates both the First Amendment and constitutional due-process protections. A hearing on the outlets’ request for a temporary restraining order is scheduled for Wednesday.
The dispute escalated after reporters from all three organizations attempted to enter the White House on Saturday and were turned away. The Secret Service had deactivated their press credentials and, in some cases, physically seized them. CNN was also removed from scheduled White House television pool duties.
In their filing, the outlets argue the administration cannot punish journalists for the content or tone of their coverage.
“Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” CNN, MS NOW and Politico said in a joint statement. “Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”
The lawsuit centers heavily on the legal concept of viewpoint discrimination – the idea that the government may not grant or revoke access based on whether officials approve of what a journalist says or publishes.
Trump has been explicit about his dissatisfaction with the three outlets’ coverage. Last week, he said he did not like what he described as “negative stories” and announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would no longer be permitted on White House grounds. He also suggested other organizations could face similar treatment.
The White House has defended the move by arguing that press access is a privilege rather than a constitutional entitlement. In a statement Monday, the administration said the First Amendment protects an outlet’s right to publish but does not guarantee a White House hard pass, a briefing-room seat, or a place in the pool.
That argument will now be tested against decades of case law involving press access.
Federal courts have ruled that the White House cannot revoke press credentials arbitrarily or because of the content of a reporter’s work once it has granted general access to the press.
A frequently cited precedent dates to 1977, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in Sherrill v. Knight that White House press access could not be denied based on the content of a journalist’s speech and that reporters were entitled to due process.
More recently, courts intervened during Trump’s first term after the administration suspended the White House credentials of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta and Playboy reporter Brian Karem.
The judge assigned to the new case, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, is the same Trump-appointed judge who issued a temporary restraining order in 2018 restoring Acosta’s White House press pass.
The current lawsuit also comes amid broader tension over the structure of the White House press pool, the rotating group of journalists tasked with maintaining continuous coverage of the president when space is limited. After CNN was removed from Monday’s television pool assignment, other major television networks declined to replace it, disrupting the traditional pool arrangement.
REELated:
SHOOTonline ceases publication after 66 years
The three outlets argue that the stakes extend beyond their own reporters.
“The ban inflicts an injury on all news media organizations,” they said in their motion, “which now risk a similar fate if they engage in fact-based, independent reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable.”
The administration, meanwhile, maintains that it is responding to what Trump characterizes as inaccurate or unfair coverage and denies that the policy attacks press freedom.
For now, CNN, MS NOW and Politico say their coverage of the administration will continue regardless of whether their reporters can physically enter the White House.
The next major development comes Wednesday, when Judge Kelly is expected to hear arguments over whether access should be restored immediately while the broader First Amendment case proceeds.
