Judge hears arguments without immediately ruling in lawsuit over White House ban on 3 news outlets (apnews.com)

submitted 1 day ago by CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/politics@lemmy.world

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A judge heard arguments Wednesday but did not rule from the bench in a case on President Donald Trump’s ban of three news outlets from White House grounds.

The hearing marked the latest development in an extraordinary showdown between Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes. Trump banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico beginning Friday, assailing what he called “fake news.” More recently the president has said negative coverage was dangerous for the country. The outlets argued they were singled out because of the content of their coverage — in other words, viewpoint discrimination and called the ban a “blatant violation” of the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly — whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar case in 2018 — didn’t immediately rule on the news outlets’ request for a restraining order. It was unclear when he would issue a decision.

He opened by reminding both sides that he’s required to apply case precedent.

The rulings in two prior cases over press access — including one that went to the U.S. Supreme Court — made clear that journalists were entitled to an opportunity to be heard before they have their press passes revoked.

Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik has argued that the rulings in the earlier cases were wrong.

“Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t, but currently as a district judge I have to apply them,” Kelly said.

Arguments began with Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the outlets, calling the ban an “unprecedented, unreasonable punishment” and saying there was “not a semblance of due process.”

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 17 points 23 hours ago

This seems like a clear case for an injunction, even if you think there could be a valid case. The "harm" in the short term is basically non-existent, so return to the status quo and let the government try to explain why targeted banning of news access based on their coverage isn't a straightforward First Amendment violation.

But this is a Trump judge. One that's ruled against him before, but a Trump judge nonetheless.

[-] dan1101@lemmy.world 10 points 22 hours ago

Yeah, it's not like the news outlets are eavesdropping in private offices. They are just attending events and press conferences, Information the administration is choosing to make public.

[-] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 10 points 22 hours ago

I don't get the national security argument. If that's a concern, you need to ban everyone, not just ones you don't like.

this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026

57 points (100.0% liked)

politics

31187 readers

2948 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News