White House Press Ban: Judge Kelly's Preliminary Injunction Stands — and DOJ Appeals to the D.C. Circuit
UPDATE (Oct. 14, 2026): The ban fight moves to the D.C. Circuit, with briefing timed through the midterm.
Hours after U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly (D.D.C., a Trump appointee) issued a 26-page preliminary injunction barring the White House from banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico — 78 journalists' "hard passes" — while their First Amendment and due-process challenge proceeds, the administration filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit. The court ordered the government to brief its case by Nov. 13; the news organizations' response is due by the end of November.
Kelly's findings cut through the government's national-security rationale: "there is no evidence in the record that President Trump made the decision to revoke Plaintiffs' hard passes on national security grounds from the get-go, nor at any time has he directly stated that national security was the reason for his decision. When he announced the ban with his post on September 18, he did not mention national security." On retaliation: "President Trump's own comments suggest that he intended the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes to alter their reporting on him1, bolstering the case that his action here is sufficient to deter a reporter of ordinary firmness from reporting in the same way she had before."
The White House, in a background statement: "The Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President's Oval Office. The lies they smear are a disservice to the American public and tear at the very fabric of our Democracy. They're completely capable of reporting from directly outside. We intend to appeal this misguided decision." The outlets' lawyer Theodore Boutrous: "When the President issued his 'ban on the free press,' he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment... The President has repeatedly, candidly, and consistently admitted in public that he banned our clients from the White House to punish reporting he doesn't like and to try to force journalists to cover him in ways he prefers."
What it means: a judge the president appointed found the ban likely unconstitutional retaliation and a due-process violation, and the administration's answer is an appeal that keeps the fight alive through Election Day — with the injunction preserving the status quo (78 journalists restored) while the D.C. Circuit takes it up.
-
An instance of Criticism of the president now triggers formal institutional exclusion. — A judge the president appointed formally found the press exclusion was retaliation for critical coverage — the exclusion machinery judicially documented. ↩︎