News outlets, Trump officials due in court over White House media ban - USA Today
A federal judge is set to hold the first hearing Sept. 23 over President Donald Trump's decision to ban several news outlets from the White House.
Trump announced on Sept. 18 that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would no longer be able to report from the White House, and that bans for other outlets were also coming. He didn't point to specific coverage that prompted the decision, but said later that day that he was frustrated by “cumulative stories over the last few years” from what he described as the “fake news.”
Reporters from each news outlet were denied entry to the complex the next day. While the ban blocks the reporters' White House access, it doesn't prevent them from continuing to report on the president.
The news outlets sued the administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Sept. 21, calling the ban a "direct assault on the First Amendment" and a "blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles." They asked for a swift temporary restraining order to restore their reporters' White House press passes while litigation continues.
USA TODAY is one of dozens of news organizations that are seeking to jointly file a brief in the case supporting the media outlets' effort to get a temporary restraining order.
Trump responded to the lawsuit in a legal filing Sept. 22 that "access to the White House is a privilege—not a right."
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, was assigned to the case. He previously ordered the White House to restore then-CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press badge in 2018 after it was revoked following a contentious exchange with Trump at a news conference.
The extent to which First Amendment rights apply in a certain government-owned space depends on what kind of forum it is. Traditional public forums, including public parks and sidewalks, have the greatest First Amendment protection. In a nonpublic forum, such as an airport terminal, the government can impose speech restrictions as long as they are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.
The news outlets’ federal lawsuit argues in part that the White House spaces they were banned from are nonpublic forums, making the restrictions "flatly unconstitutional" under the First Amendment's speech protections. They also say Trump violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by not providing clear standards and a chance to be heard before denying them access.
Trump acknowledged in his own court filing that the Washington federal appeals court, which issues rulings that are binding for Judge Kelly's court, ruled in 1977 that some areas of the White House grounds constitute a nonpublic forum.
However, Trump told Kelly "that decision is wrong and should be overruled" and that, regardless, he can still ban outlets to enforce journalism standards and protect national security information.
BrieAnna Frank's role covering First Amendment issues at USA TODAY is made possible by a collaboration among Freedom Forum, Journalism Funding Partners and the USA TODAY Network. Freedom Forum does not provide editorial input. Reach BrieAnna at bjfrank@usatoday.com and @brieannafrank on X and Bluesky.
