2026-09-24T05:06:33.711Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/24/politics/trump-press-lawsuit-ruling-white-house-access
联邦法官蒂莫西·凯利下令特朗普政府临时恢复美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）、MS NOW和《政治报》的白宫采访权限，此前这些媒体被唐纳德·特朗普总统禁止进入白宫园区。
在周四早些时候公布的裁决中，凯利认定吊销记者采访证的行为缺乏“宪法规定的正当法律程序”。
他还表示，政府的相关论点“几乎无法支撑其声称的国家安全利益”。禁令生效后，特朗普及其律师称，这些媒体被取消采访权限是因为它们过往的报道引发了国家安全担忧。
“首先，在本案起诉前的所有记录中，没有任何迹象表明吊销原告的硬卡采访证是出于国家安全考虑，”凯利写道。“毫无疑问，特朗普总统在宣布‘禁止’原告进入白宫时并非这么说的——相反，他当时强调的是原告报道所谓缺乏真实性且充满负面性。”
“即便本案提交法庭后政府向原告提供的辩解，也对吊销采访证的真实目的表述模糊：尽管被告方致原告的信件提到了国家安全担忧，但它们声称要指出‘威胁国家安全和/或传播虚假信息’的报道，这让人不禁怀疑，所有被点名的报道其实都属于后者范畴，而非前者。”
关于正当法律程序，法官指出，特朗普政府直到记者的采访证被没收后，才通知他们有机会对决定提出上诉。
“‘一般原则’是，‘政府在剥夺个人受宪法保护的权益之前，必须给予其通知并听取其陈述的机会’，”凯利在裁决中援引判例法写道。
凯利的临时禁制令有效期为14天。
法官表示，该裁决目前无法立即上诉。在这份意见书中，法官制定了未来两周的相关安排，允许新闻机构和特朗普政府继续提交论点并向其提供证据。
法官尚未明确该安排的具体截止日期或其他听证会安排，但这一程序可能会让法官出台比周四上午的紧急裁决内容更详实的意见。
特朗普于周五在社交媒体帖子中宣布禁止这三家媒体进入白宫，他写道，将这些媒体“赶出去”是因为它们“持续‘报道’假新闻！”并补充说“其他假新闻媒体也将紧随其后”。
这三家媒体提起诉讼，要求暂停或彻底废除禁令。在法庭文件和周三的听证会上，代表这些媒体的律师辩称，禁令与此前的法院裁决相悖，违反了正当法律程序，且仅仅是因为特朗普对记者的厌恶才出台的。
政府的律师反驳称，特朗普的决定确实包含上诉程序，并指出禁令生效后媒体收到了相关信件。
针对周四的裁决，代表新闻机构的律师泰德·布卢特斯告诉CNN：“这是一项强有力的裁决，维护了新闻自由、正当法律程序和法治。我们非常感谢法院迅速采取行动。”
CNN已联系司法部和白宫寻求置评。
在周三针对临时禁制令动议的听证会上，司法部律师迈克尔·维尔奇克辩称，CNN、MS NOW和《政治报》的报道危害了国家安全，特朗普有权决定谁可以进入白宫。
布卢特斯在听证会上表示，“本案中首次提及国家安全”是在宣布禁令数天后，以及针对政府的当前诉讼提起之后。布卢特斯称，政府似乎是“灵光一闪”，事后才采用国家安全论调为禁令辩护。
布卢特斯还指出，这些新闻机构是在禁令宣布数天后、且在他们提起诉讼后，才收到白宫寄来的信件，信件中说明了他们被禁令的原因。
在裁决中，凯利承认这些媒体“在其硬卡采访证被吊销前，既未收到通知，也未获得陈述意见的机会”。
他写道，记录中完全没有在吊销采访证所涉任何行为之前生效的、正式阐明的相关标准。
“被告方似乎提出的一项标准——反映在他们2026年9月22日致原告的信件中，信中指认了他们令人反感的报道——过于模糊，几乎无法起到作用，”凯利在谈及特朗普政府指控其中一家媒体“表现出违反白宫园区准入人员应有的专业和礼仪标准的行为”时说道。
布卢特斯还在周三的听证会上指出，政府用以证明媒体被驱逐原因的报道中，只有一篇CNN报道是由拥有白宫采访权限的记者撰写的，且被援引的报道“都只是普通的新闻报道”。
凯利在裁决中提到了这一点，同时指出，被政府列为国家安全担忧的CNN报道——一篇关于东翼地下掩体重建计划的报道——是在记者贝齐·克莱因今年夏天续签采访证数月前发布的。
“被告方的任何论点都无法让法院相信，原告不太可能在正当法律程序主张上胜诉，”凯利写道。
此外，凯利写道，原告已证明“如果不颁布临时禁制令，他们很可能会遭受无法弥补的损害”，且恢复记者采访证符合公众利益。
“鉴于新闻自由的重要性——它‘是政府与人民之间最重要的沟通者之一’，原告——以及公众——都有着维护原有状态的持久利益，”裁决书中写道。
在周三的听证会开始时，凯利指出，他在2018年曾审理过一起类似案件，当时特朗普在与总统激烈交锋后驱逐了时任CNN记者吉姆·阿科斯塔，因此他必须遵守法院过往的先例。
“在我看来，正当法律程序主张和正当法律程序问题是解决这项动议的首要切入点，”凯利在听证会上说道。
凯利周四的裁决称，本案的情况“并非如此‘特殊’，以至于可以偏离正当法律程序的原则——即‘剥夺自由必须先给予通知和陈述意见的机会’”。
本文后续补充了报道内容并更新。
CNN的布莱恩·斯特尔特为本报道撰稿。
Judge orders Trump administration to immediately reinstate White House access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico
2026-09-24T05:06:33.711Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/24/politics/trump-press-lawsuit-ruling-white-house-access
Federal Judge Timothy Kelly has ordered the Trump administration to temporarily reinstate CNN, MS NOW and Politico’s access to the White House after they were banned from the premises by President Donald Trump.
In the ruling issued early Thursday, Kelly found the revocation of reporters’ press badges was done without “constitutionally adequate due process.”
He also said that the government’s arguments “offer little to back up their asserted national security interest.” After the ban went into effect, Trump and his lawyers said the outlets had their access revoked because their past reporting raised national security concerns.
“For one thing, nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns,” Kelly wrote. “Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ Plaintiffs from the White House —instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting.”
“And even the justifications provided to Plaintiffs after this case was filed are ambiguous about the true purpose of the revocations: while Defendants’ letters to Plaintiffs mention national security concerns, they purport to identify reporting that ‘threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods,’ leaving open the possibility that all the stories fall into the later bucket, rather than the former.”
As for due process, the Trump administration didn’t notify the reporters of an opportunity to appeal his decision until after the passes were confiscated, the judge noted.
“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,” Kelly wrote in his ruling citing case law.
Kelly’s temporary restraining order is in effect for 14 days.
His decision isn’t immediately able to be appealed, the judge noted. In the opinion, the judge set up a plan over the next two weeks for the news outlets and the Trump administration to continue making arguments and submitting to him evidence.
That plan — for which the judge hasn’t yet specified specific deadlines or other hearings — would likely result in a more robust opinion than the emergency decision Kelly made early Thursday morning.
Trump announced the ban of the three outlets in a social media post Friday, writing that he was kicking the news outlets out “as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” and adding “Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”
The three news outlets sued, requesting the ban be paused or blocked entirely. In court filings and during a hearing Wednesday, an attorney for the outlets argued the ban contradicted prior court rulings, violated due process and was issued merely because of Trump’s disdain for the journalists.
Attorneys for the administration countered, saying that Trump’s decision did include an appeals process, pointing to the letters that were received by the outlets after the ban went into effect.
Responding to Thursday’s ruling, Ted Boutrous, the lawyer representing the news outlets, told CNN: “This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law. We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action.”
CNN reached out to the Justice Department and White House for comment.
During Wednesday’s hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order, Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that CNN, MS NOW and Politico had endangered national security with their reporting and that Trump has the right to decide who can have access to the White House.
Boutrous said during the hearing that “the first mention of national security in this case” occurred days after the announced ban and following the current lawsuit against the administration. Boutrous said it seemed as if “a light bulb went off” in the administration to adopt the national security argument to justify the ban post hoc.
Boutrous also argued the news organizations were only provided letters from the White House outlining why they had been banned days after the ban was announced and following their lawsuit.
In the ruling, Kelly acknowledged that the outlets “did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard” before their hard passes were revoked.
He wrote that the record was bereft of any relevant “formally articulated standards” in place before any of the conduct for which the hard passes were revoked.
“One standard Defendants appear to offer—reflected in letters they sent to Plaintiffs on September 22, 2026, identifying their objectionable reporting—is so vague it hardly does the trick,” Kelly said, referring to Trump administration’s allegation that one of the outlets “exhibited behavior in violation of the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex.”
Boutrous also noted during Wednesday’s hearing that only one CNN story cited by the administration to highlight why the outlets were being kicked out was written by a reporter with access to the White House and that the stories cited “are just garden variety reporting.”
Kelly, in his ruling, made note of this, and that the CNN story cited as a national security concern — a report about the planned rebuilding of a bunker under the East Wing — was published months before reporter Betsy Klein’s press pass was renewed this summer.
“None of Defendants’ arguments convince the Court that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their due process claim,” Kelly wrote.
Moreover, Kelly wrote that the plaintiffs had shown “that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order,” and that it would be in the public’s interest to reinstate reporters’ press badges.
“Plaintiffs—and the public—have an abiding interest in maintaining the status quo ante given the importance of the free press, which ‘stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people,’” the ruling said.
At the start of Wednesday’s hearing, Kelly noted that he had presided over a similar case in 2018, when Trump booted then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after a heated exchange between he and the president, and had to abide by past precedent in the court.
“There is a due process claim and a due process issue that seems to me the first stop in figuring out how to resolve the motion,” Kelly said at the hearing.
Kelly’s ruling Thursday said that the circumstances here “are not so ‘extraordinary’ as to permit deviation” from the principles of due process “that a deprivation of liberty ‘be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing.’”
This story was updated with additional reporting.
CNN’s Brian Stelter contributed to this report.