Three media outlets seek permanent court order for White House press access

A federal judge recently ordered the White House to restore press access for three major news organizations, but those outlets claim the administration has not fully complied with the directive.

CNN, MS NOW, and Politico filed an amended complaint in U.S. District Court on Wednesday, asking Judge Timothy Kelly to make his prior orders permanent. The outlets state that the White House continues to block their reporters from the rotating press pool, a group of journalists who cover the president during Oval Office visits and trips on Air Force One.

The legal team for the three organizations, led by Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., argues that the president is retaliating against them for unfavorable coverage. Boutrous stated that the White House is still preventing reporters from accessing the locations where the president most frequently interacts with the media, a practice that violates free speech rights.

The core of the dispute involves whether the executive branch can punish news outlets based on the content of their reporting. The plaintiffs contend that this practice constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited by the First Amendment. The White House maintains that the president is not required to allow journalists who produce disliked reports onto White House grounds or aboard Air Force One. As of Thursday morning, the administration had not responded to the new filing.

Judge Kelly issued a ruling roughly two weeks ago, finding that the outlets were likely to succeed in their case. He expanded a previous temporary order that found the administration violated the Fifth Amendment right to due process. In that October 13 decision, Kelly also agreed with the outlets that the ban breached their First Amendment right to free speech. He rejected the president's argument that the exclusion was necessary for national security, instead finding that the ban resulted from the president's belief that the outlets' reporting was inaccurate and biased.

In the opinion, Kelly wrote that the government taking action against specific types of speech it dislikes is unlawful viewpoint discrimination. The outlets added in their filing that every news organization now faces the risk of similar punishment for coverage the president deems insufficiently favorable, leaving the public deprived of complete information about its government.