A federal judge has ruled that reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico can keep their White House press passes while their lawsuit against the Trump administration plays out in court.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly late Tuesday granted a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from enforcing its ban on the three news organizations. The order keeps the status quo in place while the case proceeds, ABC News reported.

What the Judge Ruled

Kelly, whom President Donald Trump nominated to the bench, found that the outlets are likely to succeed on their claims that the ban violated their free speech and due process rights. He also found they "are likely to suffer irreparable harm" without the injunction.

The judge noted that the outlets received no warning before the ban was announced. "To put it mildly," he wrote, the plaintiffs got no notice that they could lose their hard passes before Trump's September 18 post, according to Scripps News.

Kelly wrote that the ban "threatens to cut off all Plaintiffs' access to the White House press area," limiting their ability to observe and report on events firsthand. He found the administration's national security arguments came after the fact and were unsupported.

At the same time, Kelly cautioned that his decision should not be read as saying Trump's concerns about media accuracy are unfounded. He also denied the government's request to put his ruling on hold while it appeals.

How the Fight Started

Trump announced the bans in a September 18 social media post, criticizing the outlets' coverage as "fake news." The move affected 78 reporters across the three organizations.

The outlets filed a joint lawsuit in Washington, D.C., three days later. On September 24, Kelly issued a temporary restraining order that restored their press access while he considered the case. That order was later extended and expired Tuesday, when the longer-term injunction took its place.

Hard passes give journalists who regularly cover the White House long-term access to its grounds without needing permission for each visit. The injunction will remain in effect until the case is resolved, which could take "weeks, months or years," Axios reported.

Arguments on Both Sides

Government lawyers argued that White House access is a privilege, not a right, and that the president can impose bans to protect national security and curb misinformation. "The White House is the official residence and workplace of the President," they wrote.

Trump has defended the move by saying the outlets "purposely write negative news" in an effort "to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration."

Theodore Boutrous Jr., an attorney for the three outlets, said Trump "blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment." He said the court "was right to enjoin the White House" from enforcing what he called an "unconstitutional ban on the free press."

Legal experts have pointed to a 1977 case, Sherrill v. Knight, in which a federal appeals court ruled that arbitrarily revoking a journalist's credentials based on their reporting or viewpoint is unconstitutional, Axios reported. A separate lawsuit from the Associated Press over press access is also ongoing.

The Justice Department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

Limits on Access Remain

The ruling does not guarantee the reporters access to key areas such as the Oval Office and Air Force One. The White House has continued to bar CNN and Politico journalists from press pool assignments on Air Force One, even after the restraining order, according to Axios.

Other outlets in the press pool have declined to fill those spots. The legal battle is the latest chapter in an escalating media fight between the administration and news organizations it has accused of unfair coverage.

Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.