Judge Prevents Trump Ban on CNN and others from White House

 Mohammad Alkhateeb

‘Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.’

~ Thomas Jefferson

In the News

On Friday 18 September 2026, US President Donald Trump announced the ban of at least three major US news corporations (including CNN) from the White House, with an indication that more may yet be added to the list.

This is an ongoing attempt by the Trump Administration to deny access by certain news organisations to the US President’s office and residence, restricting their coverage of White House briefings and statements. Those are important events in the US political calendar, anticipated and followed throughout the US and across the globe.

The decision was justified in a social media post by President Trump, stating that the news corporations targeted in this ban ‘shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report fiction and lies when they’re covering the President of the United States’. CNN and other news networks have previously been accused by Trump of disseminating ‘fake news’ and misleading the US public. The US President has repeatedly engaged in public confrontations with journalists at the White House and elsewhere.

The Law

The US constitution[1] is accompanied by 27 amendments, the first ten being known as ‘The Bill of Rights’, which is integral to the US constitution. The First Amendment guarantees, amongst other things, freedom of speech[2] and freedom of the press[3].

Former Supreme Court judge, Potter Stewart, had stated that this was ‘an acknowledgement of the critical role played by the press in American society’. The Press, and its constitutional rights, guarantee the right of US citizens to receive information regarding public affairs, to have access to information regarding government, its activities and political developments.

The legal issue does not lie in the existence of any obligation by the President or his Office or Administration to provide the press, or the public in general, with access to political events or to grant interviews. The US Constitution does not impose such an obligation.

The source of the legal issue is instead the act of revocation of passes. In other words, the unconstitutional nature of the ban is argued on the basis that the organisations in question have been deprived of their existing access to information, with the reasoning behind the ban being potentially unconstitutional and unlawful. The ban is argued by the affected news networks to be based on the content of their coverage, which could indicate that the ban amounts to censorship[4] and a transgression of the First Amendment.

The Court

CNN, MSN Now and Politico, together brought a claim to the District Court[5] in the District of Columbia. They argued to the court that this was a violation of the First Amendment, on the basis that it had ‘singled them out’ as a result of the content of their coverage.

District Judge Timothy Kelly has issued a restraining order,[6] ordering the White House to reinstate the press passes which had been revoked by this ban. He ordered that the White House ‘immediately return, reinstate, and restore’ the access enjoyed by the three corporations in question. This is a temporary measure, as the order will be in place for 14 days, at the end of which the court will have made a final determination on the lawfulness of the ban and whether this ban and revocation of passes is compatible with the US Constitution.

The court’s decision does not yet mean that it has taken the view that the press ban is unconstitutional, but it does indicate that it is likely to be deemed as such. The judge held that, in addition to the possible violation of the First Amendment, there has been a failure to follow the procedure (due process) required for a decision of this nature, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

The Judge stated that notice needed to be given to the corporations before the implementation of this ban and they ought to have an opportunity to respond to the notice before any action is taken. This procedure, as mandated by the Fifth Amendment, has not been followed by the Trump Administration.

The judge found that the Administration’s claim, that this decision is based on national security grounds, is unsupported. Trump’s social media post did not state any security grounds, instead it had accused the organisations in question of publicising ‘fake news’, which it has also not supported by evidence.

Final Thoughts

Although this decision does not entirely prevent the public from receiving information on relevant issues, it does act as a restriction on the constitutional rights of the organisations involved, as they themselves benefit from First and Fifth Amendment rights. The rights owed to them are rooted not in a duty to provide access to information generally and the White House specifically, but rather the unconstitutional nature of the restriction imposed, which is based on unproven grounds.

This means that, since they had existing passes to access the White House to exercise their First Amendment Right (freedom of press in particular), there was no lawful justification for the revocation of their passes, and their Fifth Amendment Right was violated, as the necessary constitutional procedure had not been adhered to by the Trump Administration.

Therefore, it is likely that the court will deem the ban and suspension of press passes to CNN, Politico and MSN Now to be unlawful, and to be in contravention of the US Constitution. This has yet to be determined by the court, which to date has only moved to temporarily forbid the exclusion of those organisations whilst the court reaches a final decision.  

—————————————————————————————————————————

[1] A Constitution is a legal text drafted as the foundational basis for all laws that govern the country. It governs the relationship between the state and the individual.

It is usually a single document which outlines all the fundamental laws of the land, but in some cases, such as in the UK, the constitution is uncodified and therefore merely an amalgam of conventions, principles, and laws enacted by Parliament.

[2] Freedom of Speech is the right to express information, ideas, and opinions without government restrictions based on content.

[3] Freedom of the press is the protected right to freely publish communications and expressions of opinions through various forms of media. Freedom of the press limits the government’s control or censorship over the media, except in the most severe national security risk potential. The right is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

[4] Censorship is ‘the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons.’

[5] District Courts are, in the US, first instance (primary) courts in the US Federal court system. They have jurisdiction to hear most categories of federal cases in civil law and criminal law. This means that once a case begins, this is the first court that will hear the case and its facts, where it relates to federal law (as opposed to state law).

[6] A restraining order in US federal law is a short-term court order which prevents a party to legal proceedings from doing something. As this is a civil matter, in the jurisdiction of England & Wales this would be known as a interim injunction. In England & Wales, restraining orders exist only in criminal proceedings.