2026-09-25T10:03:37.67Z / reuters.com
- 内容摘要
- 法院恢复美国有线电视新闻网、政治报和MSN新闻14天的白宫采访资格
- 法官尚未就这些新闻机构的言论自由诉求作出裁决
- 相关机构须在9月28日前申请初步禁令
华盛顿9月25日路透电 — 美国总统唐纳德·特朗普政府周四遵守法官命令，恢复了上周被他封禁的三家媒体机构——美国有线电视新闻网、《政治报》和MSN新闻——的白宫采访资格，但围绕该禁令的诉讼仍未结束。
以下是关于这三家媒体机构提起的诉讼后续步骤的关键信息。
通过《每日庭审》通讯将最新法律新闻直接发送到您的收件箱，开启您的清晨。点击此处订阅。
法官是否发布了最终裁决？
没有。负责该案的华盛顿美国地区法官蒂莫西·凯利发布了一项临时命令，在这些媒体的法律挑战推进期间，恢复其14天的采访资格。
凯利在裁决中表示，法律先例明确表明，一旦向记者发放白宫新闻通行证，在吊销这些证件之前，记者有权“获得通知并得到申辩机会”。
由特朗普任命的凯利法官表示，这些新闻机构很可能在其正当程序宪法权利遭到侵犯的主张上胜诉。
但凯利并未触及该案的核心问题：新闻机构称该禁令违反了美国宪法第一修正案规定的言论自由和新闻自由权利。
凯利表示，无需解决这一问题，因为正当程序诉求已足以作为颁布临时限制令、叫停特朗普禁令的依据。
凯利设定9月28日为最后期限，要求相关媒体申请后续裁决，即初步禁令，该禁令可将他对特朗普禁令的叫停延长至整个诉讼期间。
特朗普政府能否提起上诉？
如果凯利将其初步命令转为禁令（这似乎很有可能），政府可以请求华盛顿联邦上诉法院解除该禁令。
特朗普早在周一法官作出裁决前就预料到会在凯利面前败诉，并扬言要上诉。
特朗普周五在其社交媒体平台上宣布了该禁令，称这三家新闻机构“在报道美国总统时，不应持续编造或报道虚构与谎言”。
司法部周二在一份文件中指责这些媒体的报道威胁国家安全，并援引了关于美国导弹储备、特朗普白宫舞厅建设以及最近共和党中期党代会出席人数的报道。
凯利在2018年处理过一起类似案件：特朗普在第一任期内吊销了前美国有线电视新闻网记者吉姆·阿科斯塔的白宫新闻通行证。
凯利作出有利于阿科斯塔的初步裁决后，白宫向该记者发送了一封信，称已作出“最终决定”恢复其新闻通行证，导致阿科斯塔自愿撤回诉讼。
白宫能否再次尝试吊销这些媒体的白宫采访资格？
三家媒体的律师西奥多·布卢特罗斯在周三的法庭听证会上警告了这种可能性。
布卢特罗斯曾敦促凯利就正当程序和第一修正案问题作出裁决。布卢特罗斯在法庭听证会上表示，法官仅专注于正当程序问题，等于为特朗普政府打开了大门，使其可以通过更正式但预先注定结果的程序再次禁止这些媒体机构。
布卢特罗斯将此与美联储理事丽莎·库克的案件相提并论。特朗普上月再次推动将她从美联储罢免，此前今年夏天早些时候最高法院的一项裁决以缺乏正当程序为由驳回了之前的罢免尝试。
“我非常担心，即使法院基于正当程序理由颁布临时限制令，这种闹剧仍将继续，”布卢特罗斯说道。
布卢特罗斯周四在接受MSN新闻采访时表示，他的客户的第一修正案主张“将在未来几周成为焦点”。
“我预计政府会设法为他们事后提出的毫无根据的国家安全论点进行辩护和巩固，”布卢特罗斯补充道。
简·沃尔夫报道；大卫·巴里奥和迈克尔·佩里编辑
我们的准则：汤森路透信托原则。
Why the court fight over the White House media ban isn’t over
2026-09-25T10:03:37.67Z / reuters.com
- Summary
- Court restored CNN, Politico, and MS NOW’s access for 14 days
- Judge has not yet ruled on the news outlets’ free speech claim
- Outlets face September 28 deadline to seek preliminary injunction
WASHINGTON, Sept 25 (Reuters) – US President Donald Trump’s administration complied on Thursday with a judge’s order to restore White House access to three media outlets he had banned last week — CNN, Politico, and MS NOW — but litigation over the ban is not over yet.
Here is what to know about the next steps in the lawsuit filed by the three media outlets.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
DID THE JUDGE ISSUE A FINAL RULING?
No. The judge assigned to the case, US District Judge Timothy Kelly in Washington, issued a temporary order that reinstated the outlets’ access for 14 days while their legal challenge proceeded.
In his ruling, Kelly said legal precedents make clear that once White House press credentials are issued to journalists, they have a right to “notice and an opportunity to be heard” before those credentials are revoked.
Kelly, a Trump-appointed judge, said the news outlets were likely to succeed on their claim that this constitutional right to due process was violated.
But Kelly did not reach a primary issue in the case: a claim by the news outlets that the ban violated the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the US Constitution’s First Amendment.
Kelly said it was not necessary to resolve that issue, since the due process claim was sufficient grounds to grant a temporary restraining order halting Trump’s ban.
Kelly set a September 28 deadline for the outlets to request a follow-up ruling, known as a preliminary injunction, which would extend his block on Trump’s ban for the duration of the case.
CAN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPEAL?
If Kelly converts his initial order to an injunction, which seems likely, the administration could ask a federal appeals court in Washington to lift the injunction.
Trump, anticipating a loss before Kelly, vowed an appeal on Monday, before the judge had even ruled.
Trump announced the ban on Friday on his social media platform, saying the three news organizations “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States.”
In a filing on Tuesday, the Justice Department accused the outlets of threatening national security with their coverage, citing stories about US missile stockpiles, construction of Trump’s White House ballroom and turnout at the recent Republican midterm convention.
Kelly handled a similar case in 2018 when Trump, during his first term, revoked the White House press credentials of former CNN journalist Jim Acosta.
After Kelly issued a preliminary decision in Acosta’s favor, the White House sent the journalist a letter saying it had made a “final determination” to restore his press pass, leading him to voluntarily drop his case.
COULD THE WHITE HOUSE TRY AGAIN TO REVOKE THE OUTLETS’ WHITE HOUSE ACCESS?
Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for the three outlets, warned of this possibility during a court hearing on Wednesday.
Boutrous had urged Kelly to rule on both the due process and First Amendment issues. By focusing exclusively on due process, Boutrous said during the court hearing, the judge was opening the door for the Trump administration to try again to bar the outlets in a more formal but preordained process.
Boutrous drew a parallel to the case of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Trump last month renewed his push to remove her from the central bank, following a Supreme Court ruling earlier in the summer that blocked a previous attempt due to a lack of due process.
“I’m very concerned that even if the court grants a TRO [temporary restraining order] on due process grounds, the shenanigans will continue,” Boutrous said.
In an interview with MS NOW on Thursday, Boutrous said his clients’ First Amendment arguments “will come front and center” in the coming weeks.
“I imagine the government will somehow try to justify and shore up this baseless national security argument they came up with after the fact,” Boutrous added.
Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by David Bario and Michael Perry
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复