Judge concludes Trump's White House media ban hearing with no ruling
D.C. District Court Judge Tim Kelly ended a Wednesday hearing on whether President Donald Trump's move banning three news organizations from the White House violates the Constitution with no ruling after hearing arguments from both sides -- but suggested the administration hasn’t come close to making a solid legal case for its media ban on CNN, MSNOW and Politico.
"I'll consider what you've told me today and try to get you an answer as soon as I can," Kelly told the attorneys at the conclusion of the hearing.
CNN, MSNOW and Politico requested a temporary restraining order to restore their reporters' access to the White House complex after Trump instituted the ban late last week. In the lawsuit, the news organizations called Trump's decision at "direct assault on the First Amendment" and a "blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles."
Last week, in a social media post, Trump said that the "Media Outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America." In a social media post on Monday, Trump added that the barring of journalists was not "an assault on the Free Press" but instead "an assault on the FAKE NEWS," which he claimed was a national security "threat."
The Department of Justice defended the ban, citing specific stories from each outlet that it claimed violated "standards of professionalism and decorum" by “trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information."
Ted Boutrous, who is representing the news organizations, argued on Wednesday that some of the stories that the White House put forward were months old and in some cases were written by reporters who subsequently had their hard passes renewed. He said the move was a "cowardly" act by the administration to mask Trump's real motive behind the bans.
"There are no stories identified by the president himself that would have justified this. He disclaimed that. So this is just a textual post hoc effort to justify just a blatant violation of due process," Boutrous said.
Trump's 'our lead witness,': Boutrous
Boutrous told the court that Trump is essentially the "lead witness" in the case, because he keeps making their point: that the ban is viewpoint and content-driven.
Boutrous said that Trump "declared through social posts, in the Oval Office, over and over and over again" that he was instituting the ban on the news organization "because the coverage was too negative."
"He keeps proving our point," Boutrous said. "He is really our lead witness here."
At an event in the Oval Office last week, Trump mentioned "negative" coverage.
"It's sick. I mean, there's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stuff. Now, if they want to write them, that's fine. But I don't have to let them into my, into the people's house," Trump said at the time.
Kelly, who in 2018 granted a request from former CNN correspondent Jim Acosta to restore his White House hard pass during the first Trump administration, presided over Wednesday's hearing.
Kelly signaled that he believes the White House failed to follow the process established by earlier court cases -- including the one involving Acosta -- to terminate a reporter’s credential.
Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik argued that President Trump has broad authority to remove outlets based on national security determinations and the letters sent to the media organizations provided sufficient due process to justify revoking their passes.
"Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right," Velchik said.
Kelly noted that he doesn't have the authority to overrule legal precedents, pushing back on Velchik's assertion.
Boutrous concluded the hearing by arguing that Trump’s conduct violates "First Amendment principles that have governed this country from the beginning of time" and urged the judge to issue a speedy ruling.
"These are urgent matters. We're at war. We have world leaders coming to Washington," he said. "That harm is irreparable. The public interest favors striking down unconstitutional acts like that."
