A federal judge has extended an order protecting White House access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico, dealing another legal setback to President Donald Trump’s administration in a dispute over press freedom and the government’s authority to restrict media coverage.
According to Reuters and the Associated Press, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a preliminary injunction on October 13, preventing the administration from enforcing its September decision to revoke the three news organizations’ White House press credentials while their lawsuit proceeds.
The ruling builds on an emergency order issued on September 24 that temporarily restored the journalists’ access after the White House barred them from its grounds.
Kelly, who was appointed to the federal bench by Trump in 2017, found that the news organizations were likely to succeed in their constitutional challenge. His decision raised concerns about retaliation against journalists for reporting that the president considered unfavorable.
The dispute began on September 18, when Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would lose their access because of what he described as inaccurate and negative reporting.
The three organizations challenged the decision in federal court, arguing that the restrictions violated the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.
The administration defended its authority to control access to the White House, citing security considerations and concerns about journalistic conduct.
However, the judge found insufficient evidence that restoring the journalists’ credentials would endanger national security. He also pointed to the president’s own public statements as evidence that the restrictions were connected to dissatisfaction with the outlets’ coverage.
The preliminary injunction allows the journalists to retain access to White House grounds while the legal proceedings continue, unless a higher court overturns the order.
It does not automatically guarantee participation in every presidential press pool assignment or access to restricted locations such as Air Force One and the Oval Office.
The White House has criticized the ruling and indicated that it intends to appeal.
For press freedom advocates, the dispute raises a broader constitutional question: whether a president can exclude established news organizations from routine coverage because of disagreement with their reporting.
The case is expected to remain an important test of the relationship between the executive branch, the judiciary and independent journalism in the United States.
