The White House confirmed it will appeal a Trump-appointed judge’s order restoring press credentials for CNN, MS NOW and Politico while their lawsuit moves forward.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday night that blocks the administration from barring reporters for those three outlets from the White House. The order lets the journalists keep their press credentials as the case continues, Fox News Digital reported.
Kelly, appointed by President Donald Trump, expanded his own Sept. 24 temporary restraining order. That earlier order had already found the outlets were likely to win on Fifth Amendment due process claims after their credentials were deactivated or confiscated.
The White House is not standing down. An administration official said the decision is misguided and confirmed plans to take the fight higher.
The dispute started in September, when Trump announced a ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico and criticized their reporting. White House officials then pulled or disabled credentials. The three organizations and three journalists sued, arguing the move violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.
In the new injunction, Kelly went further on the free-speech claim. He found the restrictions likely violated the First Amendment because they appeared driven by the president’s objections to the outlets’ coverage rather than national security concerns, the Associated Press reported in the Fox News account.
The Washington Examiner carried the judge’s sharper language on why the revocations looked unlawful.
"It is likely that Plaintiffs were selected by President Trump for revocation of their access to the White House press area because he believes their coverage of him and his administration is generally inaccurate and biased... Simply put, that is unlawful viewpoint discrimination."
Kelly also rejected the administration’s request to pause his ruling while an appeal is prepared, according to the AP. That means CNN, MS NOW and Politico keep walking into the briefing room for now.
Administration lawyers had argued that White House press access is a privilege, not a right, and that the president holds authority to decide who receives credentials. A White House official answered the injunction in blunt terms and made the next step plain.
"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,"
That statement frames the stakes the way many conservatives see them. Credentialed access is not a constitutional blank check for outlets the White House says mislead the public. The official’s point was practical as well as political: the organizations can still report from outside the building.
Justice Department attorneys defended the same core idea in court, that the president may set the terms for who stands in the press area. Fox News Digital sought further comment from the department.
Attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr., representing CNN, MS NOW and Politico, welcomed Kelly’s decision and cast it as protection for the organizations and their journalists.
"We are grateful that the court ruled in favor of our clients CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO and secured access to the White House for these news media organizations and their journalists,"
Boutrous has accused Trump of using access limits to punish unfavorable coverage. The lawsuit remains pending, so the injunction is not a final judgment. It is a court order that freezes the ban in place and keeps the plaintiffs inside the credential system while judges keep working through the claims.
Trump announced the ban in September and hit the three organizations over their reporting. Credentials were then deactivated or confiscated. The outlets and three journalists filed suit on First and Fifth Amendment grounds.
On Sept. 24, Kelly issued a temporary restraining order focused on due process. Tuesday night he converted and expanded that relief into a preliminary injunction, added the First Amendment likelihood finding, refused a pause pending appeal, and left the credentials intact.
Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume has questioned whether a media ban of this kind is effective, even while noting that some network coverage has been comically unbalanced, and has suggested the move mainly rallies the president’s base. The legal track is now separate from that political debate: the White House is appealing, and the newsrooms stay credentialed until a higher court or a later ruling says otherwise.
For readers who do not follow every court filing, the mechanics are straightforward. A preliminary injunction is an early order that holds the status quo when a judge thinks the plaintiffs are likely to succeed and face harm without relief. It is not the end of the case. It is a stop sign on the ban while the appeal and the broader lawsuit proceed.
Kelly’s dual findings matter for that next round. One rests on process, how the credentials were pulled. The other rests on motive, whether the selection of these three outlets tracked disagreement with their coverage. The administration’s answer is that the ruling misfires and that Oval Office access is not something “fake news” can demand. The plaintiffs’ answer is that the Constitution blocks viewpoint-based exclusion from the press area.
Those positions are not reconciled in the record so far. They are teed up for appeal.
Hard-news consumers already know what CNN, MS NOW, and Politico produce day after day; a temporary court order does not change that record, and the White House is right to keep contesting who belongs in its own briefings.
