By Jan Wolfe
WASHINGTON, Sept 25 (Reuters) - US President Donald Trump's administration complied on Thursday with a judge's order to restore White House access to three media outlets he had banned last week — CNN, Politico, and MS NOW — but litigation over the ban is not over yet.
Here is what to know about the next steps in the lawsuit filed by the three media outlets.
DID THE JUDGE ISSUE A FINAL RULING?
No. The judge assigned to the case, US District Judge Timothy Kelly in Washington, issued a temporary order that reinstated the outlets’ access for 14 days while their legal challenge proceeded.
In his ruling, Kelly said legal precedents make clear that once White House press credentials are issued to journalists, they have a right to "notice and an opportunity to be heard" before those credentials are revoked.
Kelly, a Trump-appointed judge, said the news outlets were likely to succeed on their claim that this constitutional right to due process was violated.
But Kelly did not reach a primary issue in the case: a claim by the news outlets that the ban violated the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the US Constitution's First Amendment.
Kelly said it was not necessary to resolve that issue, since the due process claim was sufficient grounds to grant a temporary restraining order halting Trump's ban.
Kelly set a September 28 deadline for the outlets to request a follow-up ruling, known as a preliminary injunction, which would extend his block on Trump's ban for the duration of the case.
CAN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPEAL?
If Kelly converts his initial order to an injunction, which seems likely, the administration could ask a federal appeals court in Washington to lift the injunction.
Trump, anticipating a loss before Kelly, vowed an appeal on Monday, before the judge had even ruled.
Trump announced the ban on Friday on his social media platform, saying the three news organizations "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States."
In a filing on Tuesday, the Justice Department accused the outlets of threatening national security with their coverage, citing stories about US missile stockpiles, construction of Trump's White House ballroom and turnout at the recent Republican midterm convention.
Kelly handled a similar case in 2018 when Trump, during his first term, revoked the White House press credentials of former CNN journalist Jim Acosta.
After Kelly issued a preliminary decision in Acosta's favor, the White House sent the journalist a letter saying it had made a "final determination" to restore his press pass, leading him to voluntarily drop his case.
COULD THE WHITE HOUSE TRY AGAIN TO REVOKE THE OUTLETS' WHITE HOUSE ACCESS?
Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for the three outlets, warned of this possibility during a court hearing on Wednesday.
Boutrous had urged Kelly to rule on both the due process and First Amendment issues. By focusing exclusively on due process, Boutrous said during the court hearing, the judge was opening the door for the Trump administration to try again to bar the outlets in a more formal but preordained process.
Boutrous drew a parallel to the case of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Trump last month renewed his push to remove her from the central bank, following a Supreme Court ruling earlier in the summer that blocked a previous attempt due to a lack of due process.
"I'm very concerned that even if the court grants a TRO [temporary restraining order] on due process grounds, the shenanigans will continue," Boutrous said.
In an interview with MS NOW on Thursday, Boutrous said his clients' First Amendment arguments "will come front and center" in the coming weeks.
"I imagine the government will somehow try to justify and shore up this baseless national security argument they came up with after the fact," Boutrous added.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by David Bario and Michael Perry)
