US Media Ban Update: US Judge orders White House to immediately reinstate access for media houses

Federal Judge Timothy Kelly has ordered the Trump administration to immediately reinstate access for CNN, Politico, and MS NOW at White House. After the media outlets sued US administration in federal court.

After President Donald Trump barred CNN, Politico, and MS NOW from entering the White House and all three media outlets sued US administration in the federal court. The Federal Judge Timothy Kelly has ordered the US administration to immediately restore their access in the building. In an attempt to defend the action in court, the Trump administration accused the media of disseminating misleading information and endangering national security; the court rejected this claim.

According to the judge Kelly's decision, which was made early on Thursday, the reporter’s press cards were taken away without "constitutionally adequate due process." Judge Kelly wrote “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.”

The administration's attorneys responded that US President Trump's decision did include an appeals procedure, but it was only made clear in letters to the media outlets a few days after the ban was declared. Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik argued that US President has the authority to determine who gets access to the white house and that CNN, Politico, and MS Now compromised national security through their news and coverage, during the hearing on Wednesday.

The news outlets' representative, Ted Boutrous, countered the argument stating that "the first mention of national security in this case" happened a few days after the restriction was announced and after the administration was sued. According to Boutrous, it appeared as though "a light bulb went off" in the administration when they decided to use the national security justification for the post informal prohibition.

Additionally, Boutros pointed out that the stories mentioned by the government "are just garden variety reporting" and that only one CNN article highlighting the reasons the outlets were being expelled was authored by a writer with access to the White House.

As for now the federal court has favored the media outlets, The Silicon Review asks: How will US administration respond to the federal court’s decision?

Q: On what ground US President Trump banned the media outlets?

A: US President Trump banned the three media organizations CNN, Politico, and MS NOW on Friday accusing them of writing ‘fiction or lies’ about US administration.

Q: How did media outlets respond to the ban?

A: In response to the White House ban, major media outlets put up a historic united front by suspending the White House press pool collectively, and filling a joint federal first Amendment lawsuit.

Q: What was the response of federal court on the media ban?

A: According to the judge Kelly's decision, which was made early on Thursday, the reporter’s press cards were taken away without "constitutionally adequate due process." Judge Kelly wrote “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.”

Q: What did US administration’s defense attorney said in the defense of US government on media ban?

A: Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik argued that US President has the authority to determine who gets access to the white house and that CNN, Politico, and MS Now compromised national security through their news and coverage, during the hearing on Wednesday.

Q: How did media outlet’s attorney defended their point?

A: The news outlets' representative, Ted Boutrous, countered the argument stating that "the first mention of national security in this case" happened a few days after the restriction was announced and after the administration was sued. According to Boutrous, it appeared as though "a light bulb went off" in the administration when they decided to use the national security justification for the post informal prohibition.