Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
Overview
Overview
CNN, MS NOW, POLITICO, and three of their White House correspondents sued President Trump and three administration officials after the President announced on September 18, 2026 that he was banning the three outlets from the White House, effective immediately, over what he called their "constant reporting FAKE NEWS." The suit claims the ban and the accompanying deactivation and seizure of the outlets' press credentials violate the First and Fifth Amendments, and seeks a declaratory judgment plus a temporary restraining order and injunction restoring the credentials and White House access the plaintiffs held before September 18.
The Facts
Facts
Plaintiffs Cable News Network, Inc., MS NOW Cable, LLC, POLITICO LLC, and White House correspondents Akayla Gardner (MS NOW), Cheyenne Haslett (POLITICO), and Betsy Klein (CNN) sued Donald J. Trump, Assistant to the President for Communications Steven Cheung, Secret Service Director Sean M. Curran, and White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles, all in their official capacities, on September 21, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint alleges that on September 18, 2026 at 3:04 p.m., the President posted on Truth Social that he was banning CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO from the White House "as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" and warned "Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow." At an Oval Office press event roughly an hour later, the President said the decision was "really just cumulative stories over the last two years" that he considers "purposely negative," "one-sided," and "never good," and called his own action the "ban on the free press." The complaint alleges that overnight the White House deactivated the outlets' hard-pass press credentials, and that on the morning of September 19, Secret Service officers at the gate denied Klein, Gardner, and Haslett entry and physically took their hard passes. The complaint also alleges that CNN, already scheduled as the network pooler for Monday, September 21, was removed from the White House's published schedule for that day the night before, at 10:55 p.m. on September 20.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the President's abrupt, content-based exclusion of three news organizations and their reporters from the White House grounds, and the deactivation and confiscation of their press credentials without advance notice or a hearing, violates the First Amendment's protections against retaliation and viewpoint discrimination and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
The Rules
Rule
The D.C. Circuit has long held that a White House hard pass is a liberty interest "protected by the first amendment" that "may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment," and that denial of a hard pass requires explicit, meaningful standards and an opportunity to be heard. Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129-31 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Karem v. Trump, 960 F.3d 656, 665-67 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The D.C. Circuit has also held that the "White House Press Area" is a nonpublic forum, meaning government restrictions on access must be viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the forum's purpose. Ateba v. Leavitt, 133 F.4th 114, 121-23 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Separately, the First Amendment bars government officials from taking retaliatory action against individuals for protected speech, including press coverage. Houston Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Wilson, 595 U.S. 468, 474 (2022); Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024). The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause requires notice and "an opportunity to present objections" before a protected liberty or property interest is deprived. U.S. Const. amend. V; Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).
The Application
Analysis
Plaintiffs argue the ban satisfies each element of a First Amendment retaliation claim (protected speech, an adverse action that would deter an ordinary speaker, and a causal link), pointing to the President's own statements tying the ban to their "cumulative" coverage. They separately argue the ban is viewpoint discrimination in a nonpublic forum under Sherrill and Ateba, and that it violates due process because no standards were published and no hearing was offered before the credentials were deactivated and seized. Plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 for a temporary restraining order barring further implementation of the ban and ordering the immediate restoration of the hard passes and access held before September 18, 2026; that motion (Doc. 2, filed September 21, 2026) requested an expedited hearing. Defendants filed an opposition on September 22, 2026 (Doc. 16), arguing that Sherrill was wrongly decided and should be overruled but that, even under Sherrill, the President has a compelling interest in enforcing "standards of professionalism and decorum," citing letters to the three outlets alleging they had published "sensitive or classified information," and citing Associated Press v. Budowich, No. 25-5109, 2025 WL 1649265 (D.C. Cir. June 6, 2025), for the government's authority to control access to restricted presidential areas. Defendants also argue the action was not retaliatory because the same action would have been taken regardless of the plaintiffs' coverage, and that plaintiffs received adequate process because the President's letters offered them an opportunity to contest the findings by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 25, 2026. The case is assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly, who entered a standing order on September 21, 2026. The court scheduled a motion hearing on the TRO for September 23, 2026 at 3:30 p.m., with a public dial-in access line. At the September 23, 2026 hearing, defendants further argued that an adequate standard existed because the public is generally on notice that disclosing classified information is unlawful; the court addressed and rejected that argument in its ruling the following day.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
On September 24, 2026, following a September 23 hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly granted the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order. Applying the four factors of Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim. Under Sherrill v. Knight and Karem v. Trump, a bona fide correspondent's White House hard pass is a liberty interest that "may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment," and before revoking a hard pass the government must promulgate governing standards and give the reporter fair notice of both the conduct that would trigger a sanction and the magnitude of that sanction. The court found the defendants gave no pre-deprivation notice or hearing, pointed to no formally articulated standards, and could not invoke any "extraordinary circumstances" exception for post-deprivation process, because the record lacked factual support that the reporting endangered national security and, in most instances, the reporters who wrote the identified stories did not even hold hard passes. Finding irreparable harm from the loss of constitutional freedoms and a balance of equities and public interest favoring the plaintiffs, the court ordered the defendants, except President Trump, to immediately reinstate the revoked hard passes of CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO employees. The court declined to stay its order, set the temporary restraining order to remain in effect for fourteen days with expedited briefing on a preliminary injunction to follow, and imposed a nominal one dollar bond due by October 1, 2026. What to watch: the expedited preliminary injunction briefing and Judge Kelly's ruling on it, which will determine whether the reporters' restored access continues past the fourteen-day temporary restraining order.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support