Reporters for CNN, MS NOW and Politico were denied entry to the White House and had their press credentials taken on September 19, 2026, after President Trump announced a ban on the three news organizations. The three outlets and three of their reporters sued on September 21, and the case is not a class action — there is no class and nothing for the public to claim.
Allegations Only · No Court Ruling Yet
This article describes a lawsuit filed on September 21, 2026. The statements below are the plaintiffs' allegations, which the defendants have not yet answered in court, and no court has ruled on the merits. This is not a class action: there is no class, no damages are sought, and there is nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Three news organizations and three of the reporters who cover the White House for them sued President Donald J. Trump and three of his senior officials on September 21, 2026, asking a federal judge to undo a ban that has kept them off the White House grounds since the weekend. The case is Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03287, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, brought by Cable News Network, Inc., MS NOW Cable, LLC and POLITICO LLC.According to the complaint, the President announced on Truth Social on the afternoon of Friday, September 18 that he was banning journalists from the three outlets from the White House effective immediately, calling it the "result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" and adding that there would be "[o]ther Fake News Media Outlets to follow." The complaint says the reporters' hard passes were deactivated overnight, and that when three of them arrived at the White House the next morning, Secret Service officers at the gate denied them entry and took their credentials.
The suit pleads three constitutional claims — due process under the Fifth Amendment, First Amendment retaliation, and First Amendment viewpoint discrimination — and asks for a declaration and an injunction rather than money. None of it has been decided. The defendants have not answered, and a hearing on the plaintiffs' emergency motion is set for September 23.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Is This a Class Action? No
It is an ordinary civil lawsuit brought by six named plaintiffs on their own behalf, and that distinction changes everything about what a reader can do with it.A class action asks a court to let named plaintiffs sue for a much larger group of people who are not in the courtroom, which is why those cases produce class definitions, certification fights, notice programs, opt-out windows and, eventually, claim forms. This complaint has none of that. It contains no class allegations, no proposed class, no request for certification under Rule 23 and no demand for money damages. The docket records no jury demand, because a request for a declaration and an injunction is decided by a judge.
What the plaintiffs want is narrow and specific: a ruling that the ban is unconstitutional, an order stopping the administration from enforcing it, and the return of the hard passes their reporters held before September 18. Nobody outside those six plaintiffs is a party, and there is no list to join, no form to file and no fund to claim from. What a class action actually is is worth reading beside this case, because high-profile suits against the government are routinely described in headlines in terms that make them sound like something the public can sign up for.
What the Complaint Alleges
The three counts are pleaded in the order the plaintiffs think is most straightforward.The due process count argues that news organizations and their reporters hold liberty and property interests in their White House credentials, that the D.C. Circuit has said so for decades, and that those interests cannot be taken away without advance notice under a clear published standard and a chance to be heard. The complaint says the plaintiffs got none of the three: no warning, no articulated standard beyond the President's own view of what counts as fake news, and no avenue to respond before the passes were switched off.
The retaliation count argues the ban punishes past coverage. Its evidence is the President's own words: the complaint quotes him saying at an Oval Office event hours after the announcement that there was no particular story behind the decision, that it was "really just cumulative stories over the last two years," and that "[t]here's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories." It also quotes him describing his own action as "the ban on the free press."
The viewpoint discrimination count argues that the White House press areas are what the law calls a nonpublic forum — government property opened to a selected set of speakers — and that the government may not pick among those speakers based on their point of view or on standards so vague that they invite arbitrary enforcement. Every one of those characterizations is the plaintiffs' own, and the defendants have not yet responded to any of them.
What a Hard Pass Is, and Why Losing One Matters
A hard pass is the credential issued to journalists who regularly cover the White House. The requirements sit in federal regulation at 31 C.F.R. § 409.1: the applicant has to be based in the Washington area, be accredited by a press gallery in the Supreme Court, the Senate or the House, and clear a Secret Service background check.That regulation is narrower than people assume. It directs Secret Service officials deciding an application to be guided solely by whether the applicant poses a physical danger to the President or the President's family serious enough to justify exclusion, and a companion provision sets out the process for a denial: written notice of the factual basis, a chance to respond in writing and be heard, and a final written decision. Nothing in it addresses the content of anyone's reporting.
Practically, the pass is the job. It buys unescorted, short-notice access to the briefing room, the press workspaces in the West Wing, the North Lawn and the President's travel. The complaint says CNN alone had 40 credentialed journalists and MS NOW 22 as of September 18, and that CNN was the assigned network pooler for Monday, September 21 — the outlet responsible that day for supplying video and audio of presidential events to the other broadcast networks and, through them, to more than a thousand local affiliate stations. The complaint says the White House removed CNN from that day's schedule late the night before.
The Judge Has Seen a Version of This Case Before
The case drew Judge Timothy J. Kelly, who was nominated to the district court by President Trump in 2017.He is also the judge who handled the last one. In November 2018 the White House suspended the hard pass of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after a contentious exchange at a news conference, CNN sued in the same courthouse, and the case — captioned Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:18-cv-02610 — was assigned to Judge Kelly, who ordered the credential restored. The White House reinstated it.
The two cases are not the same size. The 2018 dispute concerned one reporter's pass; this one concerns every credentialed journalist at three national news organizations, with no stated end date. How much the earlier ruling carries over is exactly the kind of question the September 23 hearing exists to answer.
What Happens Next
The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order the same day as the complaint, asking the court to halt the ban immediately and order the credentials restored while the case proceeds. That is the standard vehicle for a claim of ongoing constitutional injury, and it is decided on a compressed schedule.Judge Kelly set that schedule within hours. He ordered the defendants to file any response to the motion by September 22, 2026 and set a hearing for 3:30 p.m. on September 23, 2026, to be held by videoconference. The Justice Department entered an appearance for all defendants on the day the case was filed.
A ruling on a restraining order is not a ruling on the merits. It turns largely on whether the plaintiffs are likely to win and whether they are suffering harm that money could not fix later, and whichever way it goes, the underlying constitutional questions stay open. The docket is public and the case number is below.
Read the Complaint
Questions
Is the CNN, Politico and MS NOW lawsuit a class action?
No. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump is an ordinary civil lawsuit brought by six named plaintiffs on their own behalf: three news organizations and three of their White House reporters. The complaint contains no class allegations, asks for no damages, and asks the court to certify no class. Nobody outside those six plaintiffs is a party to it, and there is nothing for a member of the public to file, join or claim.
What are the news organizations actually asking the court to do?
Declaratory and injunctive relief. They want a declaration that the ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments, an order barring the administration from enforcing it, and an order restoring the hard-pass credentials and White House access their reporters held before September 18, 2026. They also ask for costs and attorneys' fees. They are not asking for money damages.
What is a White House hard pass?
A hard pass is the credential issued to journalists who regularly cover the White House. Under 31 C.F.R. section 409.1 an applicant must be based in the Washington area, be accredited by a congressional or Supreme Court press gallery, and clear a Secret Service background check. The pass allows unescorted access to the press areas of the White House complex. The regulation says the Secret Service is to be guided solely by whether an applicant poses a physical danger to the President or the President's family.
Has a court ruled on the White House press ban yet?
Not as of September 21, 2026. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order the same day they filed the complaint. Judge Timothy J. Kelly ordered the defendants to file any response by September 22, 2026 and set a hearing on the motion for 3:30 p.m. on September 23, 2026 by videoconference. Nothing has been decided on the merits.
Has this happened before?
A narrower version did. In November 2018 the White House suspended the hard pass of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, and CNN sued in the same court. That case was assigned to the same judge now handling this one, and the court ordered the credential restored. The complaint describes the 2018 episode as involving one reporter; this one covers three entire news organizations.
Does this lawsuit affect ordinary readers or viewers?
Not in any way that creates a legal right or a payment. The complaint argues the public is harmed because the ban limits reporting about the government, and it cites case law saying the public has an interest in journalists not being arbitrarily excluded from sources of information. That is an argument about why the court should grant relief to the six plaintiffs, not a claim on anyone else's behalf.
Sources
• U.S. District Court, District of Columbia — docket in Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03287• Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, filed September 21, 2026 — full text (PDF)
• U.S. District Court, District of Columbia — docket in the 2018 credential case, Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:18-cv-02610
• Electronic Code of Federal Regulations — 31 C.F.R. § 409.1, White House press pass eligibility
• Electronic Code of Federal Regulations — 31 C.F.R. § 409.2, procedure before a press pass is denied
