A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump appeared skeptical of some of the administration's arguments Wednesday, as attorneys defended the president's ban of three media outlets from the White House last week. Judge Timothy James Kelly is weighing whether to allow the administration to keep CNN, Politico, and MS NOW journalists and producers away from covering goings-on at the White House, amid insistence from the outlets that the First Amendment was being breached. Attorneys for the affected media outlets told the judge there had been no "semblance of due process" and framed the ban as punishment handed down by the president, calling it "clear retaliation" during the hearing.
They argued that Trump's legal team had to come up with an argument and rationale for the ban after he posted to Truth Social last Friday. The Department of Justice (DOJ) had argued that White House access is "a privilege—not a right," that "there is no such due process or First Amendment right attaching to these credentials," and that the president should have greater discretion over press access. It also insisted Trump’s actions were justified because the outlets failed its "minimum requirements of professionalism" and published sensitive national security information.
During the hearing, the government argued the outlets had been banned over national security concerns, despite this not being a given reason when the White House announced the ban. Kelly told the short hearing that the outlets did not receive due process before the ban took effect. He has yet to issue a decision on a plea for a temporary restraining order.
In a post on Truth Social Friday, the president said the three outlets would not be permitted at the White House "as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" "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," Trump added. "Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow." The announcement sparked confusion Friday night about whether the ban would take effect, but on Saturday, staff from Politico, CNN, and MS NOW were walked off White House property. In a press release Monday, the White House said, "The First Amendment protects their right to publish; it does not entitle them to a hard pass, briefing room seat, or place in the press pool." The release went on to highlight Democratic presidents' criticism of right-leaning media, including Fox News.
Trump has frequently returned to his "fake news" message over the years, which began as a criticism of fabricated stories but has become a catchphrase aimed at outlets and reporters he does not like, particularly during his second term. In a joint filing Wednesday, a group of dozens of media outlets, from The New York Times to Fox News, to regional newspapers and TV, led by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the White House Correspondents' Association, showed their support for CNN, Politico, and MS NOW. The group also laid out similar arguments to those put forward by attorneys representing the affected outlets, calling the president's move unconstitutional.
They argued that White House access could not be determined by whether the administration was receiving favorable coverage. The list of those on the brief reflected a variety of outlets, some of which tend to publish news with viewpoints different from the affected group, highlighting a rare moment of unity across the media. In the wake of Trump's announcement, Republicans and administration officials have claimed that former President Barack Obama made a similar move during his term, banning Fox News from the White House.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
