Trump has a history of showing disdain for court orders, but the processing of press credentials, more than defiance, probably caused delay for journalists returning from media ban

(Facebook)

An Associated Press survey over the first 15 months of Donald Trump's second term as president shows his administration ignored or violated court orders at least 31 times. When a federal judge granted a temporary injunction early Thursday morning that immediately lifted a White House ban on journalists at three prominent news outlets, reporters from the outlets (CNN, MS NOW, and Politico) said they still were being denied access even after the ban had been lifted. That caused some observers familiar with the administration's disdain for court orders to wonder if recent history was repeating itself.

Our research indicates that it probably was a delay in processing new press credentials, not defiance, that caused the delay. A report from USA Today and Yahoo! News has details:

All three media outlets that President Donald Trump banned from the White House were allowed back in Sept. 24 after a judge ruled that the revocation of their credentials probably violated the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, had ordered the administration to respond by 12:30 p.m. ET. CNN, MS NOW and Politico announced that their reporters were let back in just after noon, though many of them were initially denied access in the morning.

Micah Stopperich, director of White House press operations, submitted a statement to the court that the press credentials were restored Thursday morning and available for retrieval before 10 a.m. 

The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) had a harsh reaction to yesterday morning's events, calling the original ban an "unconstitutional crackdown" and stating that the administration openly defied the court by continuing to deny access to the networks. The foundation issued a statement under the headline "White House defies judge who smacked down media ban": 

Hours after Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., delivered a resounding defeat to President Trump early this morning, restraining his administration from barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House and holding that the ban is likely unconstitutional, the administration defied the order by continuing to deny access to the networks.

Kelly held that the press met the “high bar” to show that the ban likely violated the Fifth Amendment’s protections for due process. He also rejected the administration’s argument that “national security” concerns justified the ban, noting that the news stories the administration pointed to are “routine” and that there is no precedent for applying laws prohibiting disclosure of classified information to reporters. 

But after Kelly’s ruling, and in spite of the temporary restraining order entered by the court, Politico, CNN, and MSNOW reported that some of their reporters were denied access to the White House and some had their press credentials confiscated. 

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the FPF, issued the following statement:

“The administration was rightly given the back of the hand by Judge Kelly for claiming routine reports harm ‘national security,’ but court orders are just paper unless they’re enforced. Enough is enough. Government officials who continue to deny journalists’ access to the White House in defiance of Kelly’s order should be held in contempt.

“And it’s long past time for judges to start aggressively sanctioning DOJ lawyers when they make frivolous national security arguments to turn Trump’s petty grievances against the press into government policy. That way, we won’t get to the point where Secret Service agents are defying court orders to carry out the president’s authoritarian whims.

“The Pentagon Papers case famously rejected a prior restraint aimed at specific documents the government claimed posed national security risks, and Trump himself lost two cases in which he tried to similarly ban reporters in his first term. Anyone who argues ‘national security’ are magic words justifying banning three entire news outlets from the White House should be not just laughed out of court but sanctioned.

“Trump’s own announcement of the ban admitted it was about coverage he didn’t like. The reports the government cited are years old and one was even based on a briefing from the vice president. Trump beats up on the free press not because of national security but because he’s terrified for the public to see what he and his administration are up to in the people’s house behind closed doors, whether it’s letting classified tech go missing or almost starting a war based on an AI hallucination.

“Those are the stories you won’t see on Trump TV. They bolster national security by exposing real threats to the homeland — government malfeasance and incompetence. Everyone involved in this multipronged and apparently ongoing attack on the Constitution must be held accountable.”

You can read Judge Kelly’s full order here.

Wayne Unger, associate professor of law at Quinnipiac University, writes at The Conversation under the headline "How due process, not the First Amendment, got the White House ban on reporters blocked in court." Unger notes that Trump is an old hand when it comes to attacking the rights of a free press:

This was not Trump’s first attempt at banning journalists from the White House. During his first term, he sought to ban CNN’s Jim Acosta by revoking his credentials following a contentious news conference about the 2018 midterm elections.

In that conflict, CNN filed a lawsuit, arguing that, “If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials.”

Journalism organizations also responded. The Committee to Protect Journalists, the Radio Television Digital News Association and even Acosta’s peers at The Daily Caller – a right-leaning news outlet – condemned the White House ban.

Judge Kelly also is an old hand, having handled the Acosta case. Unger writes:

At the time, Kelly granted CNN a temporary injunction – reinstating Acosta’s press pass. The Trump administration later restored Acosta’s credentials, and CNN dropped its lawsuit.

Many commentators and members of the press have called Trump’s latest ban on the three news organizations a violation of the First Amendment.

 The case, however, goes beyond that issue, Unger notes:

White House Correspondents’ Association President Jacqui Heinrich said on X that revoking access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico “violates the First Amendment.”

Even George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who staunchly supports Republicans and frequently criticizes the press, said on X that the ban “would be an assault on long-honored principles of a free press.” 

As Turley and many others have argued, Trump’s ban is almost certainly unconstitutional under the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Media law professor Frank LoMonte argued in 2018, “The First Amendment guarantees all Americans freedom to speak and publish without government interference.”

But they may be missing a crucial point. In fact, there’s more than one constitutional right involved in such a case. Kelly primarily based his 2018 ruling on the reporter’s Fifth Amendment rights to due process, not on the First Amendment. He relied on due process again in ordering access temporarily restored for CNN, MS NOW and Politico.

In my view as a constitutional law professor, it is less clear whether the press has a constitutional right of access to the White House even though past presidents have honored and respected the press’s access to the executive branch.

While several Supreme Court cases, such as Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, unequivocally provide the press with a right of access to criminal trials, there is no Supreme Court precedent that specifically provides a clear constitutional right of access to the White House. 

In one case from 1977, Sherrill v. Knight, Robert Sherrill, the Washington correspondent for The Nation, was – after holding press passes over several years – denied a press pass because the Secret Service advised he should not be given one. The Secret Service refused to disclose their justification.

Sherrill sued, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Secret Service cannot deny a White House press pass absent “narrow and specific standards by which applications are to be judged.”

The court required the White House to provide the press with “notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for (them) to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial (of a press pass).”

In the court’s view, these requirements – notice and an opportunity to rebut the bases for the denial of a press pass – are protected by two constitutional guarantees working together, the press protections in the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s protections from arbitrary deprivations of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 

In other words, before the federal government can deprive an individual of their life, liberty or property, the federal government must provide that individual with due process, whose purpose is widely accepted as preventing “arbitrary governmental actions.” 

There are a number of court decisions relevant to the journalists’ latest lawsuit, filed Sept. 21, 2026.

Among them is Mathews v. Eldridge from 1976, in which the Supreme Court stated that due process is flexible depending on the extent of the liberty or property interest at stake. But in general, the justices said, due process requires the government to provide notice to the individual and an opportunity for the individual to present their case before the deprivation occurs.

This nuance – the First and Fifth Amendment working in tandem – is what most commentators and critics are missing in their response to the recent ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico. In fact, these outlets collectively lead with their claim that the Trump administration violated their Fifth Amendment right to due process in their lawsuit to block Trump’s ban.

“Even if attending a White House event is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, that doesn’t mean the government is free to take it away as punishment,” Prof. Frank LoMonte argued in 2018. 

(Editor's Note: Those who are interested in the intersection of journalism and academia might want to check out The Conversation. It was launched in 2011 in Melbourne, Australia, and co-founder Andrew Jaspan first discussed his idea with a vice chancellor at the University of Melbourne. Jaspan envisioned the University as a "giant newsroom," with academics and researchers collaboratively providing expert, informed content that engaged with the news cycle and major issues in current affairs. The project received financial support from Melbourne University, along with three other Australian universities. 

The company has grown to include more than 150 employees and produces six international editions. Subject areas include politics, society,, health, science, and the environment. As of 2018, 36 percent of its readership was in Australia, 29 percent in the United States.)

Trump administration has a history of ignoring or violating court orders, and that could be happening today as journalists are blocked despite court order restoring access

(Threads)

Several journalists today report being denied access to the White House despite a federal judge's overnight ruling granting a temporary restraining order that immediately ended the Trump administration media ban. It was not immediately clear if the White House was openly defying the court order or if something else caused the denials. Newsweek reports on the latest under the headline "White House blocks reporters entering despite court order." Matthew Robinson and Billal Rahman write:

A number of journalists have reported being denied entry to the White House on Thursday despite a judge ordering President Donald Trump's administration to immediately restore their access.

The White House banned journalists from CNN, Politico and MS Now from entering the complex last week after Trump accused them of reporting "fiction and lies."

But U.S. District Judge Timothy James Kelly issued a temporary restraining order early Thursday preventing officials from enforcing the ban for 14 days while a legal challenge by the news outlets proceeds.

Despite the court order, journalists from all three outlets reported being denied access when attempting to enter the White House on Thursday.

Robinson and Rahman spoke with several journalists and outlets who shared their stories of being told they could not enter as usual:

CNN said that its reporter Betsy Klein and a photojournalist were denied access despite multiple attempts, and that no reason was provided. Politico and MS NOW also reported that their reporters were denied access.

MS NOW reporter Laura Barrón-López said: "I made it past the first perimeter fencing that has Secret Service... then I went to the press pass security hut and again made it through the gate." 

But she added that when she placed her press badge on a pin pad it repeatedly flashed red, and that a member of the Secret Service told her it was still disabled, before later confiscating it. 

A review by the Associated Press (AP) found that the administration had ignored or violated court orders at least 31 times since Trump returned to office. It is not clear if that is what's happening today. From Newsweek:

"It's not clear based on the interaction I had whether or not this is a defiance of the court order, or it's some kind of incompetence or lag in the system," Barrón-López said.

Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment by email. 

Trump-appointed judge does not fall for limp arguments from DOJ, suggesting media outlets soon will receive restraining order they seek for return to White House press corps

(Facebook)

(Update: When we wrote today's post below, Donald Trump's media ban appeared to be near death's door, but it still was in place -- still taking breaths. All of that changed early this morning when U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a temporary restraining order that immediately restored White House access for the three news outlets -- CNN, MS NOW, and Politico -- Trump had banned. Here is the latest from The Washington Post: 

• Overnight: The judge said Trump’s move to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House last week was likely unconstitutional. He told officials to immediately restore access.

• 
  

• Dig deeper: Read the judge’s order in full here.

• 
  

• After Trump banned Politico: Officials accused the outlet of violating standards, including by using anonymous sources. But, in an example they cited, the White House was the source.)

Donald Trump's media ban remains alive at this hour, but comments from the judge at a hearing yesterday indicate the ban might soon be on life support. Based on binding legal precedent, that is exactly where it belongs. A jointly published report at Reuters and Yahoo! News has details about a hearing that likely was closely watched by news outlets around the country -- plus countless Americans who believe that freedom of the press plays an important role in sustaining our democracy. Under the headline "Judge says Trump's White House may not comply with legal precedents," Jan Wolfe and Jack Queen write:

A U.S. judge told a hearing yesterday that President Donald Trump's decision to ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House did not appear to comply with prior rulings by a federal appellate court, but did not issue an immediate ruling on whether the news outlets should have ‌their access restored.

US District Judge Timothy Kelly held the hearing in Washington to consider a request by the news outlets for a temporary restraining order that would immediately reinstate their White House access while ‌a legal challenge they filed on Monday plays out.

The outlets said the ban violated the US Constitution's First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and a free press as well as their rights to due process. 

That last item about due process might be the central issue in the outlets' efforts to obtain a temporary restraining order that would immediately return them to the frontlines of White House news coverage. According to Reuters reporting, Judge Kelley pointed to two previous cases in the D.C. Circuit that seem  to point heavily in favor of the news outlets. Wolfe and Queen report:

The judge said that two precedents from the US ​Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit make clear that journalists are entitled to due process before their White House press passes can be revoked. The judge added that it did not appear that the White House had given the three news outlets a meaningful opportunity to contest the revocation of their access.

"The government said those cases ... were wrongly decided," Kelly said. "Maybe they were wrongly decided, maybe they weren't. But as a district court judge I have to apply them. I think it is fair to say the process the circuit laid out in those two cases wasn't followed here." 

Kelly said he would issue a ruling at a later time on the request for a temporary ‌restraining order.

The two cases Kelly referenced are Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F. 2d 124 -- U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (1977) and Karem v. Trump, 960 F. 3d 656 -- U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (2020). Both cases are what legal types like to call "black letter law" -- in other words, they are straightforward, uncomplicated, and point directly in favor of one party -- the media outlets. If Trump gave any thought to relevant issues before issuing the ban, he certainly didn't ponder things enough. As it is, he has set his administration up for what should be a one-sided court trouncing. Its lawyers in the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) might have no shame, but they should at least be embarrassed for winding up having to defend a ban that, by law, is indefensible. Wolfe and Queen write:

A lawyer for the news outlets told Kelly that they were ⁠banned without legally required advance notice or opportunity to contest the decisions.

"By ejecting and banning the plaintiffs from the White House without a semblance of due process here, defendants have imposed what really amounts to an unprecedented, unreasonable, and severe punishment," attorney Theodore Boutrous said.

Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer, told the judge the Trump administration provided ⁠a sufficient explanation for the revocation of the press passes in letters sent to the news outlets on Tuesday. But the judge signaled skepticism of that argument, noting that the letters were sent after the revocation occurred and the lawsuit was filed.

"I don't know how a letter that they got after the pass was revoked could provide them with the notice of the kind of standards that they would have to conform their conduct to, since it's a piece of paper ​they ​got saying, 'You've already violated this.'" 

Did Velchik, the DOJ lawyer, violate his "duty of candor to the tribunal," as required by the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct? I would say he came close to the edge, and that probably is an occupational hazard of representing Trump.

The hearing provided more evidence that the administration has learned "national security" is a magic phrase when it comes to getting a court to fall for a flawed legal argument and allow a Trump project to proceed. The administration tried that in documents supporting the president's "Triumphal Arch," 
 and they are trying again with the legal ban. From the Reuters report:

In a legal filing on the eve of the hearing, the Justice Department argued that ​access to the White House is a privilege, not an entitlement, and that the ‌president had the authority to suspend access by news organizations. The department also echoed Trump's contention that the bans are justified by national security concerns regarding news coverage by the outlets.

The news outlets have accused Trump of unlawful discrimination against them based on their viewpoints.

"The viewpoint discrimination is probably the clearest case in history. I mean, the president said, 'I don't like what you're publishing. I'm taking away your press pass based on that,'" Boutrous told the hearing. 

"They are using national security as this talisman — these magic words," Boutrous said. "It is just a pretextual, post hoc effort to justify a blatant violation of due process."

The militarization of Trump's Triumphal Arch draws fire from critics who say it is 'cartoonishly illegal' and 'idiotic' while charging that Trump is tying it to national security so courts will approve it

(Instagram)

Whenever the Trump administration tackles a project, you can expect incompetence and dishonesty to quickly take hold. That familiar process is unfolding at this moment as Trump attempts to pull off a con job in order to make his controversial "Triumphal Arch" palatable to oversight groups and the public. What kind of con job is Trump trying to pull? It involves the use of deceptive language. As of last Friday, Trump was advertising the arch as one thing. Then, on Sunday, he started referring to it as something else. That's nutty enough, but get this: Trump actually wants to use the arch as the site for a sniper's nest. (We can't just let the sniper's-nest idea drop, so we will return to that near the end of this post.)

That brought a heavy dose of Trump-flavored chaos to the federal review process that is required for building such a structure. One critic in Congress has called Trump's plan "cartoonishly illegal." But so far, that hasn't seemed to deter a president who has an ear only for his own thoughts and not for those of people who actually know what they are talking about.

We are more than a year and a half into Trump's never-ending second term, and we have become familiar with his pattern of disregarding norms, rules, procedures, statutes, court orders, even constitutional amendments -- structure of any kind. It is not certain yet that the arch review process will turn into a slog. But a jointly published report at The Washington Post and Yahoo! News indicates that could be the outcome. Under the headline "Trump's plan to militarize proposed arch raises new legal, safety concerns," The Post's reporting team of Dan Diamond, Liam Scott and Dan Lamothe writes:

President Donald Trump's push to convert his planned triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery into a military complex has complicated a required federal review process and raised new legal and safety concerns.

Trump unveiled his new national security rationale Sunday in a post on Truth Social, saying that the 250-foot-tall arch project - which he has framed for nearly a year as a tourist attraction - will now house drones, snipers and ammunition. The president said he was making the change at the request of the U.S. military.

One oddity is that Trump announced the change on what is considered his personal social-media platform and financial asset. That implies, at least to me, that he is directing this project on his own -- without input from anyone who might know how such projects actually come to life in the nation's capital. It also raises this question: Is Natalie Harp, Trump's "human printer" and well-publicized online mouthpiece, forming content about the arch, in total or in part? The Post team writes:

Critics of the plan saw echoes of Trump's shifting security case for the White House ballroom, which the administration has used to defend that project in court. But while presidents have historically had some leeway to revamp the White House grounds, the arch would stand on federal parkland more than a mile away, where Congress has set stricter rules for construction.

"There is nothing that authorizes or justifies a massive arch, even if Trump tries to disguise it as a military facility," said Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the top Democrat on a House committee that oversees federal parkland. "This is cartoonishly illegal, but he's obviously trying to find a way to do it anyway." (By the way, I like the way Huffman talks. "Cartoonishly illegal" is a superbly crafted phrase, one that should resonate with the public -- and perhaps it indicates Dems should keep Huffman in mind as a candidate for higher office someday.)

Experts in a variety of fields already are voicing concerns about various aspects of the arch project? Will Trump pay them any mind? Will the Colorado Rockies win this year's World Series? Here is more from The Post: 

Aviation experts warned Monday that using drones at the planned arch site - Memorial Circle, a roundabout near Reagan National Airport - could pose risks in the airport's crowded airspace.

"Anything you add to the airspace complicates the airspace and increases the operational risk," said Tom Lintner, a former safety official at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Other military and safety experts have questioned the implications of storing ammunition in the middle of a heavily used traffic circle and whether tourists could still enter the arch as previously planned.

Some of the problems with Trump's plans are so obvious that it shouldn't take an expert to point them out. Consider the following;

(1) Using drones near Reagan National Airport -- We wrote about a similar issue just last month when Trump's determination to turn the White House into a construction zone -- with work on his ballroom/military bunker, a new helipad, and other projects -- contributed to communication problems that led to a commercial airliner and the presidential helicopter coming uncomfortably close to each other at Reagan National. We noted that Reagan National has the single busiest commercial runway at a U.S. airport. We also noted that the airliner-helicopter near-miss revived memories of a January 2025 incident at Reagan National that killed 67 people, the deadliest U.S. air crash in more than two decades. 

(2) Storing ammunition near a congested traffic circle -- Gee, what could go wrong? Consider the following from Yahoo! News: 

Critics mocked the idea and slammed it as "stupid, dangerous and unworkable" and "bizarre." Some suggested the change was made to ensure the arch gets past court challenges on national-security grounds.

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., warned that the arch would sit directly in the flight path of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

"Putting a drone launching site directly in the landing path for DCA is a stupid, dangerous, and unworkable idea," the congressman posted on X. "Trump clearly expects to lose a lawsuit and therefore wants to set up a pretext to argue that the arch is tied to national security. Which is obviously idiotic."

Trump critic George Conway wrote several social media posts slamming the idea.

"Everyone who has gone to military school knows that absolutely the best place to put an ammo dump is at a major traffic junction near the heart of your capital city," Conway posted. "Reichsfeldmarschall Donald von Bone Spurs strikes again!!!"

Journalist Chuck Todd said the change makes the arch a bigger target.

"If this is actually something being considered, it seems weird to broadcast to the world where they can find a stash of weapons to target in D.C.," Todd said. "This is obviously some bizarre effort to wrap this arch idea into national defense."

We were heartened to learn that historic preservationists are involved in the project, but according to The Post, they are not pleased with how things are going:

Historic preservationists participating in a required federal review process said they could not move forward until the administration clarifies Trump's plans for the arch. Administration officials last week had asked Washington and Virginia's preservation offices to agree to a memorandum of agreement (MOA) by Monday as part of that process, and they invited other preservationists to participate.

"This MOA is DOA," Charles Birnbaum of the Cultural Landscape Foundation wrote in an email to the administration on Monday. An official for Washington's historic preservation office also wrote in an email that the office needed clarity on Trump's post. Both emails were shared with The Washington Post.

Perhaps the preservationists need clarity because  Trump has floated the murky (and "bonkers") idea of including snipers' nests in the arch. Trump has claimed the U.S. military requested the facility for snipers, but according to a report at Reuters, he has not identified any person or office that made such a request, and a military official had no comment.  Here is more from the Reuters article:

Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel, said that while there was a ​stronger case for enhancing security at the White House, including expanding underground bunker facilities, the rationale for militarizing the arch was harder to discern.

Cancian said the move appeared aimed at countering opposition to the ‌monument, which is ⁠planned for a traffic circle just 1 mile (1.6 km) from Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, an active Army installation, and 2 miles from the Pentagon.

"It looks like it's tacked on in order to strengthen the rationale for construction," Cancian, a senior adviser with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, told Reuters. "There is this military facility long established with a variety of military capabilities one mile away. So why you need this one isn't clear."

Cancian also said that storing ammunition at the arch would create logistical challenges ​and questioned the value of positioning snipers there.

Retired Air Force Col. Cedric Leighton voiced similar concern in a video interview at CNN. When asked if Trump's plans for the arc make strategic sense, Leighton said:

It doesn't. It's one of the oddest things I've heard when it comes to a monument of this type. 

When you look at defensive positions, drones usually are placed where can they do some good. Here, they will be in the flight path of Reagan National Airport. As you look at domestic positioning, you wonder: Where will snipers do their work and for what purpose will they do their work? There is no military reason for these things to be on any building of this type.

The only time that i can find when an arch was used for military purposes was in 1871 when the French used the Arc de Triomphe as an artillery position when there was civil strife in Paris.

There is no reason that justifies the construction at the White House East Wing and ballroom. There is a military complex under that structure, so there is no reason to justify construction -- if you want to call it that -- going on there.

For this proposed construction, I would like to see the military justification for that. In looking over these kinds of things in the past, I've never seen a justification that would fit for this.

U.S. Rep Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) added the following:

There is such a high level of absurdity around this. D.C. already has an anti-aircraft system in place for military purposes. There is no need for this.

But the biggest piece for me, with a number of veterans in my life, is that this is so insulting to those who actually served. Trump's public statements indicate he wants to build this arch for himself. I find it disgraceful.