Donald Trump's own statements continue to serve as a powerful argument for media companies claiming they were improperly restricted from the White House under his orders, an attorney representing CNN, MS Now, and Politico stated during a federal court hearing on Thursday afternoon.
The media coalition appeared before the judge to request an extension of a temporary restraining order issued on September 24, which directed the White House to lift the press ban for 14 days. Although that initial reprieve was set to expire on Thursday, US District Judge Timothy Kelly announced he would extend the order until Tuesday and indicated he is likely to issue a decision on a motion for a preliminary injunction by then. Consequently, journalists from the affected outlets will retain access to the White House complex through at least Tuesday.
Theodore J Boutrous, representing the media organizations in ongoing access disputes with the administration, argued that the president explicitly confirmed in a recent interview with Time magazine that the networks were blocked because of their critical reporting. Under established legal precedent, news outlets cannot be excluded from the White House based on their editorial viewpoints or coverage.
When Time inquired about the motivation behind the ban, Trump pointed to persistent unfavorable coverage, stating that while he could handle negative reporting, the coverage was unfair and extended beyond CNN and MS Now to various other entities. Government attorneys had previously cited national security concerns as a primary rationale for the ban, but the president made no mention of such issues in the interview.
Boutrous told the court that the plaintiffs' position had only strengthened due to what he characterized as an explicit admission of viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. He noted that the president was transparent about his reasoning rather than attempting to conceal it.
While Judge Kelly did not signal a final ruling, he acknowledged Boutrous's perspective during questioning of government attorney Michael Velchik, pointing out the contradiction between the decision-maker's stated reasons and the government's alternative defense.
Velchik defended the administration's actions by arguing that failures to meet basic journalistic standards contributed to the decision, aligning with the administration's criticism of the outlets. He also contended that the media companies failed to respond to subsequent letters offering an opportunity to address the accusations, a characterization Boutrous dismissed as an insincere process.
In his previous ruling granting the temporary restraining order, Judge Kelly determined that the White House had violated constitutional due process requirements by failing to provide clear standards of conduct or advance notice before imposing sanctions.
Proceedings on Thursday suggested the judge's perspective on the matter remained unchanged. Kelly told the government counsel that the administration still faced significant hurdles regarding adequate advance notice required by binding circuit precedent on White House access issues.