U.S.
Judge bars White House press ban; administration files appeal
The preliminary injunction keeps the outlets’ hard passes in place while their lawsuit proceeds. It is not a final merits ruling, and the Justice Department filed an appeal on Oct. 14.
Executive summary
- The injunction: On Oct. 13, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted the outlets’ motion for a preliminary injunction, barring officials from enforcing the Sept. 18 pass revocations while the case proceeds. The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on due-process and First Amendment claims; it has not issued a final judgment.[1][2][3][4]
- The appeal: The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal on Oct. 14, sending the challenge to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Judge Kelly had denied the administration’s request to pause the injunction pending appeal.[5][2][6]
- What access means: The order preserves the outlets’ White House hard passes while litigation continues. It does not decide every dispute over access to restricted events or the press pool, and the underlying lawsuit remains unresolved.[1][3][4]
On Oct. 13, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted CNN, MS NOW and Politico’s motion for a preliminary injunction in their lawsuit over President Donald Trump’s Sept. 18 decision to revoke their White House hard passes. The order bars the other defendants and people acting with them from enforcing those revocations, preserving the status quo while the case proceeds. It is preliminary relief, not a final judgment.[1][2][3][4]
The ruling extends the protection first provided by Kelly’s Sept. 24 temporary restraining order, which directed officials to restore the passes for 14 days. Under the Oct. 13 order, the injunction continues during the lawsuit unless an appellate court changes it; the outlets must post a nominal $1 bond by Oct. 19.[1][7][2]
Kelly found the outlets likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment due-process claim and on two First Amendment claims. The opinion says the record did not support the administration’s asserted national-security rationale for the ban and found the outlets were likely selected because Trump viewed their coverage as inaccurate or biased. These are findings at the preliminary-injunction stage, not a final decision after trial.[2][3][4]
The injunction protects the outlets’ hard passes for the White House press area; it does not resolve every dispute about access to restricted events, pool assignments or travel with the president. The opinion addresses the credential revocations challenged in this lawsuit, while other press-access policies may present separate questions.[1][2][3][4]
The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal on Oct. 14, identifying the D.C. Circuit as the court to review the Oct. 13 opinion and order. Kelly had denied the administration’s brief request to stay the injunction pending appeal. The appeal does not itself resolve the case; the district-court lawsuit and the appellate challenge remain pending.[5][2][6]