Judge extends block on White House ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico
The White House ban is blocked again.
U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly has extended the order stopping the Trump administration from shutting out CNN, MS NOW and Politico. The ruling, issued on Tuesday evening, 13 October, grants the three news organisations a preliminary injunction — a court order that keeps the ban on hold while the full case is heard, according to Variety.
Kelly, a D.C. federal judge hearing the White House-access case, found the outlets are likely to succeed on three legal arguments: one claim about due process, meaning fair procedure, and two claims under the First Amendment, which protects press freedom, Variety reported.
The extended order is direct. It says the administration shall not “execute, implement, or enforce” its 18 September 2026 decision to revoke White House access for the three outlets, according to CNN.
The fight started in September. President Donald Trump announced that month that he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House effective immediately. Reporters from the three outlets were turned away the next day, even though they still held hard passes — the long-term credentials that allow regular entry to the complex.
The White House then revoked those hard-pass credentials on or about 18 September 2026. CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued Trump and three White House officials in response. Their lawsuit alleges the ban violates the First Amendment and discriminates against them because of their editorial viewpoint.
This is the second time the court has sided with the outlets at an early stage. On 24 September, Kelly granted a temporary restraining order, a short emergency order, telling the White House to immediately reinstate their access.
For viewers, this means continuity. Correspondents from the three organisations can keep reporting from inside the building while the judges weigh the wider constitutional questions.
No final ruling has been made. A preliminary injunction is not the end of the case. It preserves access until the court decides whether the ban itself was lawful.
