Free Press

3 Leading News Outlets Say Their Sudden Banishment From the White House Is Unconstitutional

In a federal lawsuit, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico argue that Trump's bans violate due process and freedom of the press.

Jacob Sullum | 9.22.2026 3:15 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Samuel Corum/Aaron Schwartz/Pool via CNP/Mega/RSSIL/Newscom)

On Friday, President Donald Trump said he was "proud to announce" that, "effective immediately," he was "banning" CNN, MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico "from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' [of] FAKE NEWS!" News organizations "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," he explained. "Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow."

That move predictably provoked a federal lawsuit by the targeted outlets, which argue that it violates due process and freedom of the press. "This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment [or] a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles," CNN et al. say in their complaint, which they filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The lawsuit recapitulates issues raised by Trump's previous legal battles with the press. Back in 2018, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, the same Trump appointee who has been assigned to this case, issued a temporary restraining order that blocked the White House from revoking CNN reporter Jim Acosta's "hard pass," which allows a journalist to participate in press events on an ongoing basis.

Explaining his decision during a hearing, Kelly cited Sherrill v. Knight, a 1977 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that addressed the denial of a hard pass based on an "adverse recommendation" from the Secret Service. "If Sherrill stands for anything," Kelly said, it establishes that "the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects a reporter's First Amendment liberty interest in a White House press pass."

Under Sherrill, Kelly ruled, a reporter threatened with the loss of his hard pass must receive advance notice, "an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons," and "a written decision." But in Acosta's case, the White House had not met any of those requirements.

In fact, Kelly said, "whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the Government could not tell me at oral argument who........

© Reason.com