Judge orders White House to restore media access that Trump had banned

A U.S. federal judge early this morning temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s move to ban media outlets from reporting from the White House and ordered that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico be allowed access again.

This is the latest development in the escalating conflict between Donald Trump and the three media outlets whose reporting he dislikes.

Trump announced the ban on these media outlets on September 18, stating that they provide “fake news.” He recently declared that negative reporting is dangerous for the country.

The media outlets CNN, MSNOW, and Politico initiated legal proceedings over being denied access to the White House. These media outlets pointed out that they were singled out because of the content of their reporting and called the ban a “flagrant violation” of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press.

In the order published shortly after midnight, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said that these media outlets had met the legal requirements necessary to obtain a temporary restraining order against the denial of access, including the likelihood of success in their lawsuit and that they would suffer irreparable harm without such an order.

Judge Kelly early this morning issued a temporary block on the ban, which will be in effect for 14 days. Such orders are usually designed to preserve the status quo while the court examines the case in more detail.

During the hearing, Kelly asked whether the administration had fulfilled its legal responsibility and provided these media outlets with appropriate actions before banning their access.

In rulings in two previous cases regarding media access, including one that reached the Supreme Court, it was clearly stated that journalists have the right to a hearing before their press credentials are revoked.

Michael Velcik, an attorney for the Department of Defense, said that the rulings in previous cases were incorrect.

The judge indicated that his decision would be guided by earlier rulings in similar cases concerning the First Amendment, even if the government disagrees with them.