A federal judge has blocked the White House from revoking press credentials for CNN, MS NOW and while their lawsuit proceeds, finding the outlets are likely to win claims that President Donald Trump’s ban violated constitutional protections. The October 13 preliminary injunction keeps their reporters’ “hard passes” active unless an appeals court intervenes or the case reaches a final judgment.
The dispute began September 18, when Trump announced the three organizations were banned, saying their coverage was false and unfair. Reporters who arrived the next morning were turned away. The outlets and three credentialed reporters sued on September 21, arguing the sudden revocations denied due process and punished protected reporting. A temporary order restored their passes on September 24; the new ruling extends that protection through the case.
Judge Timothy Kelly concluded the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on Fifth Amendment due-process grounds and two First Amendment theories: retaliation and viewpoint discrimination. He emphasized that White House hard passes let beat reporters enter the press area without an escort, move quickly to developing events and speak directly with officials. The ban affected 78 reporters, the Associated Press reported, and risked signaling that other outlets could lose access for coverage officials dislike.
The administration argued the restrictions addressed professionalism, misinformation and national security, but Kelly said Trump’s public statements focused on negative or inaccurate coverage, while the national-security rationale emerged later in court. The judge also stressed that his ruling does not bar genuine national-security measures when classified information is unlawfully disclosed. That distinction leaves room for tailored security action, not punishment based on an outlet’s viewpoint.
The White House called the decision misguided and said the outlets could report from outside the grounds. The Justice Department has appealed, so the dispute now moves toward the federal appeals court. The injunction is not a final verdict: the underlying case continues, and the appellate court could change the order. For now, the ruling protects access for the three outlets and sets constitutional limits on how the government may use press credentials.