A federal judge on Thursday appeared likely to indefinitely extend court-ordered access to the White House for three national news organizations that were banned by President Donald Trump. But he put off a ruling on the matter until Tuesday at the latest.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly indicated he was bound by judicial precedent, which has held the White House cannot arbitrarily revoke credentials without due process.

“As far as due process goes, it’s probably the biggest hurdle you all have,” Kelly said during the hearing.

Kelly on Sept. 24 granted an emergency request to return White House access for the news organizations for two weeks. That ruling, which restored credentials for MS NOW, CNN and Politico, was set to expire on Thursday. But Kelly extended the access through Tuesday while he mulls whether to restore access on a longer-term basis.

“As far as due process goes, it’s probably the biggest hurdle you all have.”

U.S. District Court Timothy Kelly said of the government

Kelly indicated he intends to rule by Tuesday on the request for a longer-term block that would remain in effect while the litigation continues.

The three banned news organizations asked Kelly to extend his ruling indefinitely, arguing that absent his intervention, the Trump administration would again block the journalists’ access.

“The White House’s words and actions leave little doubt that it will immediately reinstate a complete ban of CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO if allowed the opportunity,” lawyers for the news organizations wrote ahead of the hearing. “Because the ban is an unlawful assault on the most fundamental First Amendment freedoms and will inflict irreparable harm on Plaintiffs and the public if not restrained.”

During the hearing, Ted Boutrous, Jr., a lawyer representing the news organizations, argued Trump’s ban violates the First Amendment. He called the ban “textbook retaliation” and claimed Trump’s overarching complaint is “you’re not saying nice things about me.”

“He doesn’t like the reporting,” Boutrous said. “He doesn’t want these reporters in the White House complex reporting the news.”

Trump “doesn’t like the reporting. He doesn’t want these reporters in the White House complex reporting the news.”

Ted Boutrous, a lawyer for the news organizations

The government has argued the ban is, in part, based on national security concerns.

Kelly pushed back on that argument, pointing to a disconnect between the government’s argument in the courtroom and the president’s public statements.

“The decision-maker has said, I’m taking this action because of X and Y and now the government is actually saying, no, it’s actually because of Z,” Kelly said, “That’s an uphill climb.”

While the legal battle over access to the White House grounds continues, the Trump administration has sought other ways to restrict access for the news organizations affected by the ban. The White House has erratically blocked both CNN and Politico from fulfilling their scheduled pool duties. MS NOW has not been scheduled for pool duty since the ban has gone into effect.

The affected news outlets allege Trump’s ban violates the First Amendment because it is retaliatory and viewpoint discrimination for coverage the president doesn’t like. They also argue it violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment because the White House did not provide adequate notice with clear standards before implementing the ban.

“[Trump’s] statements also make clear he implemented the ban to coerce more favorable coverage from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and to deter other journalists and news organizations from newsgathering and reporting that the President might view as negative,” lawyers for the news organizations wrote ahead of the hearing. “And his administration has continued to retaliate against Plaintiffs even after the temporary restraining order, only underscoring Defendants’ motive is to punish and chill journalism they dislike.”

The Trump administration pushed back on those arguments, alleging the White House gave the journalists due process when it sent letters to the news organizations explaining the ban was motivated by national security concerns based on their reporting.

“We did provide a process and they chose not to participate,” Michael Velchik, the sole lawyer representing the government argued.

Those letters were sent three days after the White House revoked press credentials from multiple journalists from MS NOW, CNN and Politico, and one day after the news organizations filed the lawsuit.

Kelly has disagreed with the government, ruling solely on due process grounds in revoking the ban. He found the Trump administration had not given the news organizations adequate due process before enacting the ban.

He also expressed skepticism that the ban was actually motivated by national security concerns.

“Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns,” Kelly wrote in his original ruling. “Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ Plaintiffs from the White House– instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting.”

Kelly’s ruling on due process grounds was unsurprising because it was bound by precedent. Circuit court precedent says the White House may not arbitrarily deny a journalist a press credential because press access to the White House is protected by the First Amendment and may not be revoked without due process.

Kelly has not yet ruled on the First Amendment claims but will likely address them at this stage of the litigation.

Coverage of Trump’s activities has been affected despite Kelly’s initial ruling because the administration continues to restrict who can participate in the media pool.

The White House press pool is a long-standing agreement between the White House and news organizations in which a small group of journalists agree to cover the president — often traveling with him — on behalf of the entire press corps. On days the White House has barred CNN or Politico from serving in the pool, other news outlets have declined to fill in for them.

Without the pool — particularly CNN’s cameras — several of Trump’s recent events have not been covered in the way they usually are. Lawyers for MS NOW, CNN and Politico argue restrictions on the pool not only affect the media organization in question but impact coverage of the president for the public.

The issue of pool restrictions has arisen in recent court filings, but it is not directly before Kelly at this point. The current legal battle is focused primarily on access to the White House itself as it existed before Trump’s ban. The lawsuit does not directly address pool access, but lawyers for the news organizations have made the point that journalists need White House credentials to participate in the pool.

The post Federal judge plans to rule soon on White House media ban, briefly extending access for journalists appeared first on MS NOW.

From MS Now.