Judge Weighs Bid to Restore White House Access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico

A federal judge in Washington began hearing arguments on Wednesday over whether CNN, MS NOW and Politico should regain their White House access after President Donald Trump barred the outlets last week.

The three organisations are seeking a temporary restraining order that would reinstate their credentials while their broader legal challenge, filed on Monday, proceeds. They contend the ban breaches the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and a free press, as well as their right to due process.

US District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was appointed to the bench by Trump in 2017, is presiding over the hearing.

Trump announced the ban on Friday through his social media platform, asserting that the outlets should not be permitted to "constantly write or report FICTION and LIES" in their coverage of the president.

In a court filing submitted a day before the hearing, the Justice Department maintained that White House access is a privilege rather than an entitlement, and that the president holds the authority to suspend credentials for news organisations. The department also repeated Trump's position that the restrictions are warranted by national security considerations tied to the outlets' reporting.

The outlets described the move in their lawsuit as a direct attack on the First Amendment and a violation of fundamental constitutional principles.

Trump has separately accused the media of seeking to damage his fellow Republicans before November's midterm elections, in which the party is battling to keep control of Congress while opinion polls indicate declining approval ratings for the president.

Pool coverage suspended

In a display of solidarity, several major US television networks suspended their pooled coverage of Trump's public movements on Monday. The arrangement, in place for decades, allows the public to watch the president's official appearances on television.

With the press pool absent, Trump's comments during a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new White House helipad on Monday could not be heard on the administration's live stream.

Free speech experts have said the ban rests on uncertain legal footing, noting that US courts have long held the government cannot condition press access on favourable coverage once a space has been opened to the media.

In a 2018 case raising comparable issues, Kelly directed the White House to restore the press pass of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, which had been withdrawn following a heated news conference with Trump. The judge found that the White House had failed to apply fair and clear procedures when revoking the credential, describing the process as "shrouded in mystery."

In a social media post on Monday, Trump expressed regret over his decision to appoint Kelly to the bench and said he was preparing for an adverse ruling.

While previous presidents have clashed with the press, Trump's confrontations with the media have been without precedent. He has broken with decades of tradition by denying basic access to numerous major news organisations, directing personal attacks at journalists over their reporting, and giving prominence to outlets viewed as more sympathetic to his administration. He has also filed lawsuits against multiple news organisations.

On Wednesday, a coalition of press freedom groups and dozens of news organisations submitted a legal brief backing the three outlets. They argued that removing the rights of journalists and news organisations because of a perceived editorial viewpoint contravenes decades of Supreme Court precedent and is impermissible in any forum, including the White House.

The brief was signed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Varta Wire, the Washington Post and Fox News, among others.