On September 24, 2026, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued an emergency order that forced the Trump administration to temporarily reinstate the White House press passes for CNN, MS NOW and Politico. The judge concluded that the abrupt revocation of the credentials likely infringed the reporters’ Fifth Amendment right to due process, echoing a similar ruling he rendered in 2018.
Background of the ban
Just days earlier, President Donald Trump announced on his social-media platform that he was banning the three outlets, accusing them of “constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” and stating, “Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President.” This move mirrors a prior attempt during Trump’s first term, when he stripped CNN’s Jim Acosta of his credentials after a heated exchange at a 2018 midterm-election news conference.
In that earlier dispute, CNN sued, warning that unchecked executive action would create a “dangerous chilling effect” for journalists covering elected officials. The lawsuit prompted Judge Kelly to grant a temporary injunction that restored Acosta’s pass, leading the administration to eventually return his credentials and the case to be dropped.
Legal reasoning behind the September 24 order
Judge Kelly focused on the procedural deficiencies surrounding the 2026 revocation. He noted that the administration failed to provide written notice or a meaningful opportunity for the outlets to contest the decision before the passes were seized. Citing the Fifth Amendment the judge emphasized that “individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them of a constitutionally protected interest.”
The court also referenced earlier precedent, such as Sherrill v. Knight (1977), in which the D.C. Circuit required the Secret Service to give press applicants notice of factual bases for denial and a chance to respond. That decision linked the due-process requirement with the First Amendment freedom of the press, suggesting that both amendments operate together to shield journalists from arbitrary exclusion.
In his ruling, Kelly declared the administration’s national-security justification “vague” and unsupported by the record. The only story cited by the White House—an article about a planned bunker under the East Wing—had been published months before the pass renewal. The judge wrote that “none of the defendants’ arguments convince the Court that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their due-process claim.” Consequently, he issued a temporary restraining order lasting 14 days, ordering the Justice Department to respond by 12:30 p.m. ET.
Reactions from the press and legal scholars
White House Correspondents’ Association President Jacqui Heinrich labeled the revocation a violation of the First Amendment in a post on X. Even law professor Jonathan Turley, a frequent critic of the press, called the ban “an assault on long-honored principles of a free press.” Media-law professor Frank LoMonte reminded observers that the First Amendment guarantees the ability to speak and publish “without government interference.”
Representing the three outlets, attorney Ted Boutrous hailed the decision as “a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law.” The Justice Department, however, argued that the ban was motivated by national-security concerns and that the administration had offered an appeals process through letters sent after the ban took effect.
The court’s order came just hours before President Trump was set to welcome Chinese leader Xi Jinping to the White House, underscoring the political stakes of the dispute.
While the temporary restraining order restores access for the next two weeks, the litigation remains open. The outcome will likely shape how future administrations manage press credentials and whether the executive branch must adhere to explicit, narrowly defined standards before denying access.
