Trump bullies his way into a controversy where the law says he does not belong, and a spineless Supreme Court allows a president to have his way despite reports that he plans to rig the midterms

(Sen. Alex Padilla, Facebook)

It has been evident for months that Donald Trump is determined to exercise authority over U.S. elections that the law does not allow him. Over the weekend, we learned that the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is fine with Trump exercising whatever authority he wishes -- whether the law gives it to him or not. That suggests we have both a corrupt president and a corrupt Supreme Court. 

That's the take-home message, as I see it, from the high court's ruling issued Friday in Department of Homeland Security vs. League of Women Voters. It's a long and winding order, one that has not been fully litigated, one with a pretty high level of complexity -- and a high level of importance for all Americans who intend to vote in November's midterms. -- so I went looking online for an article that concisely summarizes the issues, giving readers a clear understanding of what is going on. I found such an article article at NPR's website under the headline "The Supreme Court revives a controversial data system for citizenship checks." Jude Joffe-Block writes:

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has for now revived a federal data system the Department of Homeland Security revamped into a tool to check the citizenship of millions of Americans on state voter rolls. The tool has mistakenly flagged some eligible voters as potential noncitizens. 

The news comes as the Trump administration has been pouring resources into searching for noncitizens on voter rolls ahead of the upcoming election.

Those two paragraphs form a jarring opening for Joffe-Block's article. 

In the first paragraph, the final sentence -- about the tool mistakenly flagging some eligible voters as potential non-citizens -- should give would-be voters a bout of angst.

The entire second paragraph doubles down on the angst by raising these questions: (1) Why would Trump be pouring money into searching voter rolls when, by law, he has no power over our elections? (2) Trump's Department of Justice has pursued access to state voter files, which critics describe as an effort to compile national data and purge voter rolls. Does this suggest the president has dubious plans to turn the midterms in Republicans' favor?

Democracy Docket, founded in 2020 by Democratic Party lawyer Marc Elias, hints at GOP skulduggery with this not-so subtle headline: "Here is Trump's blueprint to rig the 2026 midterms. This passage from Elias is enough to make your stomach churn:

What once seemed like an abstract threat has now become concrete. The risk of a rigged election is no longer unthinkable. The need for action can no longer be delayed or denied.

 

I have often said that Donald Trump's plan is to make it harder for you to vote and easier for him to cheat. Now we know what that will look like in 2026.

In an alarming piece of news, Joffe-Block indicates some states seem to be playing along, perhaps unknowingly, with whatever scheme Trump has planned:

Many states uploaded their voter lists to the expanded version of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements data system — known as SAVE — sharing that voter information with the federal government. Tens of millions of voter records were run through SAVE before it was blocked by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in June.

The Supreme Court's decision clears the way for the administration to again use the revamped SAVE in its hunt for noncitizens on voter rolls, as well as in its unprecedented project of compiling lists of adult citizens in each state.

Any impact on the midterm elections is unclear. Federal law bans states from "systematically" removing voters from rolls within 90 days of a federal election.

It's more than a tad odd that SCOTUS would be receptive to an argument from a presidential administration on an issue where presidents are not supposed to be involved, certainly not via executive orders of questionable merit. Here is more from the NPR article:

The Trump administration and Republican state officials have made the case that the statute should not apply to removing noncitizens who were improperly registered. And the federal government argued to the Supreme Court that at a minimum, the updated SAVE should be able to be used for individual removal decisions ahead of an election.

In siding with the Trump administration, the court's majority wrote that the lower court order that halted the expanded SAVE prevents the federal government "from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this [90-day] period. The District Court's order thus inhibits the Federal Government's efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections."

The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented from the ruling, and would have denied the Trump administration's stay application.

--------------------------------------------

Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has become the high court's most eloquent voice for the cause of Justice, spelled out the concerns of the liberal justices:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the dissent, writing about the "majority's omission of any consideration of the harms that might occur if the modified SAVE system is allowed to continue operating. The District Court highlighted such harms, noting the risk that States might cancel the voter registrations of at least some recently naturalized citizens or force such persons to provide proof of citizenship before voting."

The coalition of organizations that challenged the SAVE overhaul last year, which includes the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, put out a statement on Friday that said litigation in the case is ongoing.

"Today's decision is profoundly disappointing, as it puts millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted by the administration's unreliable voter purge database weeks before the midterm elections," the statement reads. "However, this case is not over. The D.C. district court ruled that the expanded SAVE program violated multiple laws. We will be doing everything in our power to protect Americans' voting and privacy rights by ensuring that the district court decision stands." 

How did the Trump administration manage to insert itself into an election controversy where it did not belong? Joffe-Block provides the play-by play, noting that the administration wormed its way into the fight by tinkering with SAVE, a system that has been around much longer than many Americans might realize:

SAVE is a 40-year-old federal data system that was created to check the immigration status of noncitizens to determine their eligibility for public benefits.

Then, DHS overhauled SAVE last year by linking it for the first time with Social Security Administration records, which include most Americans. The overhaul also allowed bulk queries to SAVE, and DHS encouraged states to upload their entire voter rolls to SAVE to verify those registered are U.S. citizens and not listed as deceased in federal records.

In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, blocked use of the modified version of SAVE, finding that its aggregation and disclosure of sensitive data violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.

------------------------------------

"The federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote," she wrote.

After an appeals court panel refused to stay the lower court's decision in a 2-1 vote, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court earlier this month.

In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens.

"The district court's order, however, makes it harder to detect ineligible voters, undermining the integrity of federal elections and public confidence in the results of those elections," he wrote. 

A number of voting-rights groups were ready to return fire in Sauer's direction:

The League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center — which are represented in the case by Democracy Forward, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Fair Elections Center — argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that Congress has not authorized the federal government to create a "master database of U.S. Citizens," nor does it have data that could do that accurately. The brief added that multiple statutes restrict repurposing and sharing Americans' sensitive data.

"Disregarding these laws, the government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans' privacy and voting rights," the groups wrote.

They wrote that even though 65 million voters had been verified by the revamped SAVE, the government had not yet released the system's error rate, or how many Americans' citizenship was misrepresented "and who consequently have been forced to reverify their citizenship to retain their voter registration or obtain government benefits."

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."