Trump has been down this road before with limiting press access and it….predictably….did not go well for him in the courts.
On September 20, the White House deactivated the passes of more than 60 journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico, seizing credentials the next morning. President Trump announced the move on Truth Social, saying he was punishing the outlets for “constant ‘reporting’ [of] FAKE NEWS” that was “purposely negative” and “one-sided.” The three outlets sued on September 21. Here is the case their lawyers, and much of the press-freedom bar, are making.
The strongest argument is the simplest: the stated reason is the constitutional violation. Under longstanding doctrine, the government may not retaliate against speakers for the content of their speech, and the president’s own announcement supplies the motive in his own words. Even where a benefit is discretionary, officials cannot condition it on coverage they like. In Ateba v. Leavitt (2025), courts treated White House press areas as nonpublic forums, a category that still requires access rules to be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. A ban explicitly premised on two years of unfavorable stories is the definition of viewpoint-based.
The second argument is procedural, and may be the one that decides the case. Sherrill v. Knight (1977) held that because White House press credentials implicate First Amendment interests, they cannot be revoked without due process: notice, a chance to respond, and a written explanation. The D.C. Circuit reaffirmed that framework in Karem v. Trump (2020). The outlets say they received none of it. No warning, no standards, no hearing. The Justice Department’s after the fact letters, which cite CNN’s reporting on a bunker beneath the East Wing ballroom and all three outlets’ Iran war coverage, arguably underscore the point: the reasons arrived after the passes were gone.
The government’s answer is not frivolous. DOJ argues that White House access is “a privilege not a right,” that the president may exclude reporters from sensitive spaces on national security grounds, and that the stories at issue endangered that security. It has precedent to point to. In AP v. Budowich, a D.C. Circuit panel stayed most of an injunction in the AP’s favor in June 2025, holding that the Oval Office, Air Force One and the Cabinet Room are subject to presidential discretion; the AP regained only East Room access. Skeptics also note that no court has held the press has a right to any particular room.
Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, heard the restraining-order motion Wednesday. The distinction likely to matter is between choosing who to admit to a small room and expelling outlets wholesale for their coverage. In speaking with an employee of one of the banned outlets, it sounds as though they do expect to be back at the White House as an organization sooner rather than later.
Time will tell if the ban gets upheld but it looks like this is going to be added to a long string of court defeats for this administration.
Elizabeth is The Bay City Beacon’s correspondent in Washington D.C. where she covers national politics and events in the DMV.
