| |
Judge Extends Order Blocking Trump Bans10/14 06:27
A federal judge on Tuesday extended an order blocking President Donald
Trump's administration from banning reporters for three news outlets from the
White House, a pivotal operational development for the organizations as the
extraordinary case -- pitting the president against the media that cover him --
makes its way through the legal system.
(AP) -- A federal judge on Tuesday extended an order blocking President
Donald Trump's administration from banning reporters for three news outlets
from the White House, a pivotal operational development for the organizations
as the extraordinary case -- pitting the president against the media that cover
him -- makes its way through the legal system.
In a victory for media organizations at a time when tension between the
White House and journalists is high, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled
that CNN, MS NOW and Politico are likely to succeed in their constitutional
free speech and due process claims.
"Still," he added in his late-night order, "no one should interpret the
Court's decision to suggest that President Trump's concerns about accuracy and
fairness in the media's reporting are unfounded, or that the government is
powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified
information is unlawfully disclosed."
But Kelly agreed with the plaintiffs that the national security arguments
came after the fact and were unsupported by the administration.
The judge also wrote that without a preliminary injunction the outlets "are
likely to suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and the
public interest tip in their favor."
An email to the Justice Department, which is arguing the case on behalf of
the administration, was not immediately returned. The White House also did not
immediately respond to an email requesting comment.
Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the three media organizations, hailed
the judge's ruling.
"When the President issued his 'ban on the free press,' he blatantly and
explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment," Boutrous said in a
statement. "The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the
public as a whole is profound. The Court was right to enjoin the White House
from enforcing this 'unconstitutional ban on the free press' for the
foreseeable future."
Judge says no warning given before banishment
Kelly, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, previously ordered the White
House to restore the reporters' "hard pass" press credentials while he weighed
their claims. With that temporary order expiring Tuesday, the judge issued a
preliminary injunction that preserves the status quo indefinitely while the
case is pending.
Kelly said that, "to put it mildly," the White House didn't give the
plaintiffs any warning that they were in danger of losing their hard passes
before Trump's Sept. 18 social media post about their bans.
The judge also said the impact of the White House ban goes far beyond a
single reporter's ability to do their job.
"The ban threatens to cut off all Plaintiffs' access to the White House
press area--a space open to many of their competitors--thereby restricting
their ability to observe happenings there firsthand, immediately report on
those activities, and try to engage with government officials," the judge wrote.
Hard passes give journalists who regularly cover the White House longer term
access to its campus without having to get permission ahead of time.
The government asked Kelly to suspend his own decision pending an appeal,
but the judge said it didn't justify that request. Kelly said the bans impacted
a total of 78 reporters at the three news organizations.
Earlier judicial action against White House had been only temporary
Trump provided no notice before announcing the bans in a Sept. 18 social
media post, which criticized their reporting as "fake news." Kelly temporarily
blocked the bans on Sept. 24 at the request of the news outlets, which jointly
filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C.
Attorneys for the outlets have described Trump's move as "unprecedented and
blatantly unconstitutional" under the First and Fifth amendments. They argued
that it's illegal for Trump to punish the journalists because he doesn't like
the content of their reporting.
"The ban also inflicts an injury on all news media organizations -- which
now risk a similar fate if they engage in fact-based, independent reporting the
President deems insufficiently favorable," plaintiffs' lawyers wrote.
Government lawyers argued that access to the White House is a privilege --
not a right -- and said the president can impose the bans to protect national
security and to stem the spread of misinformation.
"The White House is the official residence and workplace of the President,"
Justice Department attorneys wrote. "Presidents have had a relationship with
the press since the beginning. They have long decided which journalists should
receive privileged access, which has varied substantially from administration
to administration."
|
|
