President Donald Trump answers a question from CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, right, before boarding Marine One on the White House South Lawn in Washington on Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2018. Trump was headed to Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, before continuing to Palm Beach, Florida. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik).
President Donald Trump revived his fight with the “free press” Friday, declaring that journalists who “purposely” publish negative coverage of his administration should be barred from the White House. If past court rulings are any indication, however, the policy could face an uphill legal battle.
Trump said he was “proud” to exclude CNN, MS NOW—formerly MSNBC—and Politico, accusing the outlets of constant “reporting” of “FAKE NEWS!” By early Monday, the three organizations had jointly filed a lawsuit, arguing that the administration was repeating the same “no notice, no process, and no warning” approach seen during Trump’s first term.
The complaint pointed to the White House’s earlier suspensions of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta and Playboy correspondent Brian Karem. Both disputes involved allegations that the administration violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.
“Before September 18, 2026, no President had barred CNN as an organization from the White House,” the filing stated. It recounted how the White House suspended Acosta’s hard pass after a 2018 confrontation with Trump at a news conference, prompting CNN and Acosta to sue. A court ordered the credential restored, and the White House ultimately complied. The complaint cited Karem, 960 F.3d at 661, for its account of the dispute and ensuing litigation.
For longtime Law&Crime readers, the Acosta controversy is familiar. The episode prompted the Trump White House to create new press-conference rules after courts concluded that the administration had denied Acosta the process required before taking away his access.
I have a feeling this is not going to work out the way he thinks it will. pic.twitter.com/cSxtwDLOE0
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) September 18, 2026
Karem later won support from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which found he was “likely to succeed on his due process claim” because he had not received fair notice that allegedly unprofessional conduct could result in a monthlong suspension of his hard pass.
The latest plaintiffs argue that the new media restrictions should meet the same fate. Their central claim is that the targeted news organizations were given no advance warning before the ban was imposed.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: US Embassy Alerted Russia About Potential Terrorist Strike, But Putin Disregarded the Warning – NewsFinale
“Neither the post nor the President’s remarks identified any standard by which the three banned news organizations’ coverage had been judged or would be judged in the future,” the lawsuit said. It also noted that the administration provided no explanation of who would enforce such a standard, how the outlets could challenge the decision, or when the ban might end. The complaint described the move as another “unpredictable break with prior policy and practice,” echoing the D.C. Circuit’s language in Karem, 960 F.3d at 667.
So what prompted what Trump called a ban on the “free press”?
The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that executive aide Natalie Harp showed Trump a video of critical MS NOW coverage hours before the president announced the restrictions, sending him into what the newspaper described as a “fever pitch.”
The Constitution, however, protects the “liberty and property interests” that news organizations and White House correspondents hold in their press credentials and the access those credentials provide, according to the lawsuit. That access, the plaintiffs argued, enables journalists to cover the executive branch on behalf of the public.
“No official can deprive Plaintiffs of those interests on a whim—with no notice, no process, and no warning,” the filing said. The plaintiffs again cited the Karem ruling as well as the closely related 1977 decision in Sherrill v. Knight.
Asked Friday whether the restrictions would withstand a legal challenge, Trump suggested that the outcome might not be the main objective.
“Well, we’ll see,” Trump said, according to the lawsuit. “I think it’s good to point it out whether it survives or doesn’t. I mean, I don’t think a court should allow, depends on the judge you get, to be honest with you.”
The post Trump White House’s sudden “free press” ban is a rerun of the legal drama from the president’s first term—this time with a slightly different script—first appeared on Law & Crime.