A district court judge ruled the White House violated the Fifth Amendment rights of CNN, MS NOW and Politico by banning them, and granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order that forces the White House to immediately reinstate their press access for 14 days.
Why it matters: Had a judge ruled against them, the broader press boycott could've dragged on, leaving the American public without key visual coverage of the White House.
Zoom in: In a court filing Wednesday, district judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, said the plaintiffs "have shown a likelihood of success, at least on their Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim."
- "The 'general rule,' is that 'individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them' of a constitutionally protected interest," he noted.
Context: The ruling comes ahead of a meeting at the White House between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, which means journalists will be able to cover the event and the public will get access to video and photography coverage.
Zoom out: The decision marks a huge win for the media, as it reinforces previous precedents set around its Fifth Amendment rights.
- In their complaint, the outlets argued the White House violated their First Amendment rights by blocking them in retaliation for their reporting and discriminating against their viewpoint; and their Fifth Amendment rights for banning them without due process.
Flashback: Judge Kelly oversaw a CNN lawsuit against the White House for blocked access in 2018.
- In that case, he granted CNN a temporary restraining order that required The White House restore then-correspondent Jim Acosta's press badge, ruling that the White House violated his Fifth Amendment rights by pulling his credentials without notice or an appeal process.
- While outcome of that case isn't binding, it does hold weight in informing Kelly's decision-making. CNN, MS NOW and Politico referenced that case in their lawsuit.
Zoom out: Press freedom lawyers argue the plaintiffs have a strong First Amendment case, given a binding legal precedent set by a higher court.
- In 1977, a federal appeals court ruled that The White House could not revoke a journalist's press credentials based on their coverage or viewpoint.
- In that case, journalist Robert Sherrill sued the White House for being denied a press pass with no explanation.
- That court ruled that once the White House opens up space as a public forum and lets journalists in, it cannot selectively remove access for select reporters based on their viewpoint or coverage under the First Amendment.
What's next: The judge will hear more evidence from the plaintiffs and defendants for the next two weeks, after which time, an appeal is possible.
