Federal judge lifts Donald Trump's media ban as move branded 'unconstitutional'

Federal judge lifts Donald Trump's media ban as move branded 'unconstitutional' CNN, MS NOW and Politico have had their White House access restored after the outlets filed a lawsuit saying the ban was a violation of the First Amendment A federal judge has ruled that US President Donald Trump's White House ban for three media outlets is likely 'unconstitutional'. US District Judge Tim Kelly ordered Trump to restore White House access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico after a lawsuit filed by the media organisations. Trump announced he was banning the outlets on September 18, blaming what he called “fake news.” More recently, the president has said negative coverage was dangerous for the country. The outlets, however, argued they were singled out because of the content of their coverage and called the ban a “blatant violation” of the First Amendment. Mr Trump had said on social media that the three outlets "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES". All three news outlets said their teams' press passes were confiscated on Saturday morning, local time, when their reporters went to the White House. The US president has developed a hostile relationship with journalists and media outlets who report critically on his administration, during his two terms in office. US District Judge Tim Kelly was nominated by Trump in 2017 - he also ordered a CNN journalist’s access was to be restored in a similar case in 2018. He initially heard arguments on Wednesday and ended the hearing without ruling. On Thursday, however, Judge Kelly issued a temporary restraining order that will be in effect for 14 days. Such orders are typically designed to preserve the status quo pending a closer review of the case by the court. The judge believed the White House had not exercised "adequate due process" in implementing the ban. The ruling stated: "The record lacks factual support for Defendants' contention that the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes will in fact protect national security or that national security will be endangered if the Court orders their passes reinstated while this litigation proceeds."