CNN, MS NOW and Politico employees whose White House press passes were revoked after President Trump’s September 18, 2026 ban are entitled to have them restored immediately under a temporary restraining order Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued on September 24, 2026. The order lasts 14 days while the court takes up a preliminary injunction; the case is not a class action and there is nothing for the public to claim.
Temporary Ruling · Merits Not Decided
A temporary restraining order is an emergency measure, not a final judgment. The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on one claim, based on the record so far, and did not decide their First Amendment claims. 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?
Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a temporary restraining order on September 24, 2026 in Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03287. The order requires the White House to give back the “hard pass” credentials of CNN, MS NOW and Politico employees that were revoked on or about September 18.The dispute began that afternoon, when President Trump posted on Truth Social that he was banning the three news organizations from the White House, effective immediately. The outlets say their reporters were turned away at the gates over the weekend and had their passes deactivated. The three companies and three of their reporters sued on September 21 and asked for emergency relief. Judge Kelly heard argument by videoconference on September 23 and ruled the next day.
The earlier coverage of the complaint, including what each claim alleges, is in CNN, Politico and MS NOW Sue Trump Over the White House Press Ban.
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.
What the Order Requires
The order binds every defendant except President Trump, along with their agents and anyone acting in concert with them. They must immediately return and reinstate the White House hard passes held by employees of the three news organizations that were revoked on or about September 18, 2026. The order does not name the President himself as a party required to act.It stays in force for 14 days, until the court orders otherwise or it expires, and the court will set an expedited schedule for briefing on a preliminary injunction within that period. The government asked the court to delay the order’s effective date. Judge Kelly refused, reasoning that a restraining order exists to preserve the situation before the dispute began right away, and noting that such orders generally cannot be appealed.
The plaintiffs must post a bond of $1.00 by October 1, 2026. Federal rules require security against the cost of a wrongful injunction, but the court found the government had not claimed it would suffer any economic loss.
Why the Court Ruled for the Outlets
A restraining order requires a likelihood of success, irreparable harm without relief, and a balance of hardships and public interest that favors the order. The court found all of them met, resting its ruling on the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment due process claim.Two D.C. Circuit decisions controlled the result. Sherrill v. Knight (1977) held that a bona fide Washington correspondent’s interest in a White House press pass is a liberty interest that cannot be denied without due process. Karem v. Trump (2020) held that a duly issued hard pass cannot be suspended without due process. Karem also requires the White House to adopt standards in advance, so that a reporter has fair notice both of the conduct that could cost a pass and of how severe the penalty could be.
According to the order, the defendants did not dispute that the reporters received no notice or chance to be heard before their passes were revoked. The court found no formally stated standard in place beforehand. On September 22 the White House sent each organization a letter listing reporting it objected to and citing “standards of professionalism and decorum.” The court called that standard too vague to satisfy Karem. It also noted that one plaintiff reporter’s pass had been renewed several months after she published some of the reporting the letters cited.
The government argued that Sherrill and Karem were wrongly decided. The court answered that it is bound by D.C. Circuit precedent regardless.
The National Security Argument
The government’s main defense was that the reporting at issue endangered national security. In its view, that justified giving the outlets a hearing after the passes were pulled rather than before, as appeals courts have allowed in extraordinary situations such as freezing the assets of narcotics traffickers.The court rejected that argument on this record. It said some of the cited stories dated back months or years, and that the kinds of stories identified were routine, so nothing called for urgent action. It found nothing from before the lawsuit linking the ban to national security, and noted that the President’s announcement focused on what he described as the untruthful and negative character of the coverage. The court read the September 22 letters, which described stories that “threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods,” as leaving open that every story fell into the second category.
The court also found no factual support for the claim that removing the passes protects national security. The government filed no declaration explaining how any cited story caused harm. Its two declarations came from senior Defense Department officials who, the court said, had no direct knowledge of how White House reporters work or of the facts of this dispute. Supplemental declarations from the plaintiffs showed that most of the reporters who wrote the cited stories did not hold hard passes. At the hearing the government also argued that the laws on classified information gave fair notice. The court doubted that, citing the lack of precedent for applying those laws to reporters.
What Happens Next
The court will set expedited briefing on a preliminary injunction, which could keep the passes in place for the rest of the case. That motion will be decided on a fuller record, and the government can present more evidence for its national security position. The First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint-discrimination claims in the complaint remain undecided.On September 24 the court also granted unopposed leave for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the White House Correspondents’ Association and 49 media organizations to file a friend-of-the-court brief.
The lawsuit remains an ordinary civil case brought by six named plaintiffs for a declaration and an injunction. There is no class, no fund and nothing for the public to file.
Read the Court Order
Questions
What did the judge order in the White House press ban case?
Judge Timothy J. Kelly ordered the defendants other than President Trump, and anyone acting with them, to immediately return the White House hard passes held by CNN, MS NOW and Politico employees that were revoked on or about September 18, 2026. The order lasts 14 days, and the court will set expedited briefing on a preliminary injunction in that time.
Why did the court rule for CNN, MS NOW and Politico?
The court found the plaintiffs likely to win their Fifth Amendment due process claim. Under the D.C. Circuit’s decisions in Sherrill v. Knight and Karem v. Trump, a reporter’s hard pass cannot be taken away without notice, an opportunity to be heard and standards set in advance. The court said the defendants did not dispute that no notice or hearing came before the revocations.
Did the court accept the national security justification?
Not on the current record. The court said nothing filed before the lawsuit tied the ban to national security, that the government offered no declaration explaining how the cited stories harmed it, and that most of the reporters who wrote those stories did not hold hard passes. It left room to consider the question again on a fuller record.
Is this a final ruling?
No. A temporary restraining order preserves the situation that existed before the dispute while the case proceeds. It is not a decision on the merits, and the court did not rule on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. The next step is a motion for a preliminary injunction on an expedited schedule.
Can the public join or claim anything from this case?
No. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump is not a class action. Six named plaintiffs, three news organizations and three reporters, are seeking a declaration and an injunction. No damages are sought and there is nothing to file or claim.
Sources
- Temporary Restraining Order, Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03287-TJK, ECF No. 24 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2026) — full text (PDF).
- U.S. District Court, District of Columbia — docket in Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03287, including the September 23 hearing minute entry and the September 24 order granting leave to file an amicus brief.
- Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, filed September 21, 2026 — full text (PDF).
