Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance says President Trump’s own remarks did the most damage to his case in a ruling that gave CNN, MS NOW and Politico their White House access back, according to her Substack, Civil Discourse.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, issued a preliminary injunction restoring the three outlets’ hard passes while the lawsuit proceeds. Vance explains that Kelly’s earlier temporary order turned on due process alone, since the passes were revoked with no warning. This time he also grounded the ruling in the First Amendment, finding the outlets likely to prove retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.
That distinction matters, she says. Had he stopped at due process, the White House could have followed a proper procedure and pulled the passes again, leaving the free-speech question unanswered.
Vance argues Kelly relied heavily on what Trump said. After the September 18 ban, when asked for a reason, Trump pointed to years of “cumulative stories” and said the outlets “purposely write negative news.” Vance says that undermines the government’s later argument that national security was the true motive. Kelly wrote that nothing in the record suggests the ban was planned before Trump’s announcement.
“Simply put, that is unlawful viewpoint discrimination,” Kelly wrote.
Vance also credits the judge with tone. He acknowledged that Trump’s concerns about fairness may not be baseless and that the government can act when classified information leaks, a balance she says makes the ruling harder to dismiss as partisan.
The White House said the “Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office” and plans to appeal. Trump has already filed a notice of appeal. Vance says the White House’s response only strengthens the case.
Her bottom line is that a president may criticize the press, but he can’t use his office to retaliate for coverage he dislikes.