2026-09-21T10:06:42.143Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/21/politics/cnn-politico-msnow-sue-white-house-access
被唐纳德·特朗普总统禁止进入白宫的三家全国性新闻机构——CNN、MS NOW和Politico，正提起一项至关重要的第一修正案诉讼，以恢复其采访权限。
这项紧急请求将提交至哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院的法官面前，最快可能于本周就举行听证会并由政府方进行法律答辩。
“这项禁令是对第一修正案最直接的攻击，也是对我们最基本宪法原则最公然的践踏，”这些媒体在诉讼草案中表示，他们请求法院立即采取行动，恢复旗下记者的白宫采访权限。
该诉讼将指控特朗普的禁令违反第一修正案以及宪法的正当程序保护条款。
“今天上午，我们已通知政府，我们将于今日提起诉讼，以保护我们的第一修正案权利，捍卫‘政府无权决定媒体报道或发布内容’这一原则，”三家新闻机构在周一的联合声明中说道。
“未提前通知、未遵循正当程序，白宫就以反对我们的报道为由撤销了我们记者的采访证件，”这些媒体表示。“若此行为不受质疑，将威胁新闻自由，威胁公众享有不受政府干预的独立新闻报道的权利。”
这场对峙是本届政府迄今为止针对媒体最引人注目的攻击行动之一，其影响远超这三家被禁媒体。特朗普上周五宣布禁令时曾表示，他可能会将更多媒体列入黑名单。
CNN、MS NOW和Politico的记者已无法进入白宫内部的办公区域。CNN和MS NOW还被禁止在白宫场地使用其电视设备和摄像点位。
CNN周一被取消了由多家主要新闻机构共享的联合报道职责。CNN原本承担电视联合报道任务，并计划于周一随总统前往纽约。
“这项禁令对所有新闻机构都造成了伤害——如今，只要媒体进行基于事实的独立报道，而报道内容被总统认定为不够‘正面’，它们就可能面临同样的命运，”这些媒体在预计周一提交的临时禁制令草案中表示。
“只要这项违宪禁令持续存在，公众就会持续无法获取关于政府的最新且完整的信息，从而蒙受损失。”
CNN已联系白宫，征求其对此次诉讼的置评。
多名第一修正案法律专家此前已普遍认为该禁令违宪，并谴责其突兀、歧视性，且损害了媒体报道全国性议题的能力。
这三家媒体的诉讼将主要援引特朗普周五给出的撤销采访权限的模糊理由，他当时称自己不喜欢“负面报道”。
“如果他们想写这些（负面报道），没问题。我没必要让他们进入人民的白宫，”总统还说道。
至少一名特朗普政府官员在周日的电视采访中表示，他认为1965年最高法院关于政府拒绝向前往古巴旅行的人员签发护照的判例，将支持特朗普的立场。
特朗普宣布因不满报道而禁止三家媒体进入白宫后，记者们进入白宫场地的媒体通行证均已失效。
周六，MS NOW记者阿凯拉·加德纳、CNN记者贝琪·克莱因和Politico记者夏延·哈斯莱特均试图进入白宫场地报道新闻，但被特勤局拒之门外，证件也被没收。
特朗普和其他白宫官员此前试图针对个别记者或媒体实施类似禁令，但均被法院驳回，即便在近期也是如此。法院始终明确表示，不得因记者的报道内容或发表的言论而禁止其报道白宫事务。
此次争议的核心是第一修正案法律中的“观点歧视”概念，因为特朗普已明确表示，他之所以要封禁某些媒体，是因为其报道被他认定为“负面”。法院在一系列案件中均禁止观点歧视，保护记者的权利。
三家新闻机构的诉讼将于周一提交至哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院，该法院的多名法官曾在新闻自由相关案件中作出有利于媒体的裁决，并针对特朗普政府的歧视性政策作出不利判决，尤其是自特朗普去年就职以来。
此前哥伦比亚特区联邦上诉法院确立的法律准则规定，白宫也不得在未给予记者正当程序的情况下撤销其采访证件，尤其是在白宫区域对普通媒体记者开放且不存在国家安全顾虑的情况下。
这一判例可追溯至1977年，当时特勤局撤销了《国家》杂志记者罗伯特·谢里尔的采访证件。华盛顿联邦法院恢复了其证件，哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院当时裁定：“仅当基于记者言论内容或对受保护言论类别存在歧视时，拒绝颁发白宫采访证件才违反第一修正案。”
“不仅记者及其供职的出版物，广大公众也受第一修正案保护，有权确保对新闻采集的限制不会超出必要范围，确保记者不会被任意排除在信息来源之外，”法院当时还写道。
在特朗普的第一任期内，时任CNN记者吉姆·阿科斯塔和《花花公子》通讯员布莱恩·卡勒姆的采访证件曾被暂停，引发了相关诉讼。在特朗普的第二任期内，美联社被拒绝进入椭圆形办公室和空军一号，同样引发了诉讼。
基于1977年的判例，法院在所有此类案件中基本都支持记者一方，尽管法院并未明确表示白宫采访证件的准入可以不受任何限制。
周一的法律诉状草案援引了阿科斯塔案的判例，辩称此次禁令中撤销媒体证件的行为违宪。
曾在2018年阿科斯塔案中代表CNN出庭的第一修正案律师特德·布特鲁斯，已受雇于CNN、MS NOW和Politico，参与周一的诉讼。
三家新闻机构强调，无论是否存在采访限制，他们对特朗普政府的报道都将继续进行。
“无论任何试图限制进入白宫及其他政府建筑的物理通道的行为，还是任何阻碍我们新闻报道的企图，CNN报道美国政府的使命都不会改变，”CNN在周末的一份声明中表示。
本文已更新补充更多信息。
CNN, MS NOW and Politico to sue Trump administration over White House access
2026-09-21T10:06:42.143Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/21/politics/cnn-politico-msnow-sue-white-house-access
The three national news outlets President Donald Trump banned from the White House — CNN, MS NOW, and Politico — are filing a critical First Amendment lawsuit to restore their access.
The emergency request is set to go before a federal judge in the DC District Court and could result in hearings and legal arguments from the administration as soon as this week.
“This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles,” the outlets said in a draft of their lawsuit, which is asking the court to act immediately to revive their journalists’ access to the White House.
The lawsuit will allege Trump’s ban violates the First Amendment and the Constitution’s due process protections.
“This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes,” the three news organizations said in a joint statement on Monday.
“Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” the news outlets said. “Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”
The standoff is one of the administration’s most high-profile attacks on the press to date, with implications extending far beyond the three banned news outlets. Trump said last Friday, when he announced the ban, that he might add others to the list.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters are unable to access their workspaces inside the White House. CNN and MS NOW are also blocked from using their television equipment and camera locations on the grounds.
CNN was removed Monday from pooled coverage responsibilities that are shared by major news outlets. CNN was scheduled to have TV pool duty and travel with the president to New York on Monday.
“The ban 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,” the outlets said in a draft of a request for a temporary restraining order that is expected to be filed on Monday.
“And the public at large suffers for however long the unconstitutional ban restricts access to current and complete information about the government.”
CNN has reached out to the White House for comment on the lawsuit.
Some first amendment and legal experts have already widely called the ban unconstitutional and condemned it as abrupt, discriminatory and harmful to the media’s ability to cover national issues.
The lawsuit from the outlets is expected to rely heavily on the vague reasoning for revoking access that Trump gave on Friday, saying he didn’t like “negative stories.”
“If they want to write them, that’s fine. I don’t have to let them into the people’s house,” the President also said.
At least one Trump administration official said in a TV interview Sunday that he believed a Supreme Court opinion from 1965 about the government refusing to validate passports for travel to Cuba would support Trump’s stance.
After Trump announced he was barring the three outlets from the White House because he didn’t like their coverage, reporters’ press passes to access the White House grounds were deactivated.
On Saturday, MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner, CNN reporter Betsy Klein and Politico reporter Cheyenne Haslett each tried to enter the White House grounds to cover news and were denied entry by the Secret Service, which seized their press passes.
Similar prohibitions that Trump and other White House officials have attempted to put on individual reporters or outlets have been rejected by the courts, even recently. The courts have been clear that journalists cannot be prohibited from covering the White House because of what they say or publish in the coverage itself.
The current dispute centers on a First Amendment legal concept known as viewpoint discrimination, since Trump has been explicit about his reasons for wanting to ban certain outlets over coverage he deems “negative.” Courts have forbidden viewpoint discrimination and protected the rights of journalists in case after case.
The DC District Court, where the three news outlets’ case will land on Monday, has several judges who’ve ruled in favor of press freedom and against the Trump administration for discriminatory policies, especially since Trump took office last year.
The law previously set by the federal appellate court in DC has said the White House also can’t revoke press credentials without giving the journalists due process, especially when areas of the White House are accessible to the general press and there isn’t a national security concern.
That case law dates to 1977, when the Secret Service revoked the press pass of Robert Sherrill, a reporter for The Nation. The federal courts in Washington restored it, with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling at the time, “denial of a White House press pass is violative of the first amendment only if it is based upon the content of the journalist’s speech or otherwise discriminates against a class of protected speech.”
“Not only newsmen and the publications for which they write, but also the public at large have an interest protected by the first amendment in assuring that restrictions on newsgathering be no more arduous than necessary, and that individual newsmen not be arbitrarily excluded from sources of information,” the court also wrote.
In Trump’s first term, journalists Jim Acosta, who worked for CNN at the time, and Playboy correspondent Brian Karem had their press passes suspended, triggering lawsuits. In Trump’s second term, The Associated Press was denied access to the Oval Office and Air Force One, also kickstarting litigation.
The courts largely sided with the journalists in every case, based upon the 1977 precedent, though the courts haven’t gone so far to say that White House press pass access can be unfettered.
Monday’s draft legal filings pointed to the precedent set in the Acosta case to argue that the press badge deactivations under the current ban are unconstitutional.
The First Amendment attorney who represented CNN in court during the Acosta case in 2018, Ted Boutrous, has been brought on board by CNN, MS NOW and Politico for Monday’s lawsuit.
The three news organizations have emphasized that their coverage of the Trump administration will continue regardless of the access restrictions.
“CNN’s mission to report on the U.S. government will continue regardless of any attempts to restrict physical access to the White House and other government buildings, or any other attempts to impede our journalism,” CNN said in a statement over the weekend.
This story has been updated with additional information.
发表回复