Judge Extends Order Blocking Trump Bans10/14 06:27

   A federal judge on Tuesday extended an order blocking President Donald 
Trump's administration from banning reporters for three news outlets from the 
White House, a pivotal operational development for the organizations as the 
extraordinary case -- pitting the president against the media that cover him -- 
makes its way through the legal system.

   (AP) -- A federal judge on Tuesday extended an order blocking President 
Donald Trump's administration from banning reporters for three news outlets 
from the White House, a pivotal operational development for the organizations 
as the extraordinary case -- pitting the president against the media that cover 
him -- makes its way through the legal system.

   In a victory for media organizations at a time when tension between the 
White House and journalists is high, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled 
that CNN, MS NOW and Politico are likely to succeed in their constitutional 
free speech and due process claims.

   "Still," he added in his late-night order, "no one should interpret the 
Court's decision to suggest that President Trump's concerns about accuracy and 
fairness in the media's reporting are unfounded, or that the government is 
powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified 
information is unlawfully disclosed."

   But Kelly agreed with the plaintiffs that the national security arguments 
came after the fact and were unsupported by the administration.

   The judge also wrote that without a preliminary injunction the outlets "are 
likely to suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and the 
public interest tip in their favor."

   An email to the Justice Department, which is arguing the case on behalf of 
the administration, was not immediately returned. The White House also did not 
immediately respond to an email requesting comment.

   Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the three media organizations, hailed 
the judge's ruling.

   "When the President issued his 'ban on the free press,' he blatantly and 
explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment," Boutrous said in a 
statement. "The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the 
public as a whole is profound. The Court was right to enjoin the White House 
from enforcing this 'unconstitutional ban on the free press' for the 
foreseeable future."

   Judge says no warning given before banishment 

   Kelly, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, previously ordered the White 
House to restore the reporters' "hard pass" press credentials while he weighed 
their claims. With that temporary order expiring Tuesday, the judge issued a 
preliminary injunction that preserves the status quo indefinitely while the 
case is pending.

   Kelly said that, "to put it mildly," the White House didn't give the 
plaintiffs any warning that they were in danger of losing their hard passes 
before Trump's Sept. 18 social media post about their bans.

   The judge also said the impact of the White House ban goes far beyond a 
single reporter's ability to do their job.

   "The ban threatens to cut off all Plaintiffs' access to the White House 
press area--a space open to many of their competitors--thereby restricting 
their ability to observe happenings there firsthand, immediately report on 
those activities, and try to engage with government officials," the judge wrote.

   Hard passes give journalists who regularly cover the White House longer term 
access to its campus without having to get permission ahead of time.

   The government asked Kelly to suspend his own decision pending an appeal, 
but the judge said it didn't justify that request. Kelly said the bans impacted 
a total of 78 reporters at the three news organizations.

   Earlier judicial action against White House had been only temporary 

   Trump provided no notice before announcing the bans in a Sept. 18 social 
media post, which criticized their reporting as "fake news." Kelly temporarily 
blocked the bans on Sept. 24 at the request of the news outlets, which jointly 
filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C.

   Attorneys for the outlets have described Trump's move as "unprecedented and 
blatantly unconstitutional" under the First and Fifth amendments. They argued 
that it's illegal for Trump to punish the journalists because he doesn't like 
the content of their reporting.

   "The ban also inflicts an injury on all news media organizations -- which 
now risk a similar fate if they engage in fact-based, independent reporting the 
President deems insufficiently favorable," plaintiffs' lawyers wrote.

   Government lawyers argued that access to the White House is a privilege -- 
not a right -- and said the president can impose the bans to protect national 
security and to stem the spread of misinformation.

   "The White House is the official residence and workplace of the President," 
Justice Department attorneys wrote. "Presidents have had a relationship with 
the press since the beginning. They have long decided which journalists should 
receive privileged access, which has varied substantially from administration 
to administration."