How due process, not the First Amendment, got the White House ban on reporters blocked in court

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore journalists' access to the White House on September 24, 2026, after revoking their press passes for their "constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" President Trump's decision came after he had previously sought to ban CNN's Jim Acosta from the White House during his first term.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, Radio Television Digital News Association, and Acosta's peers at The Daily Caller condemned the White House ban, with various organizations calling it a violation of the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled that the revocation of the reporters' press passes likely violated their Fifth Amendment right to due process. This decision follows a similar case in 2018, where Kelly also relied on due process protections. Media law professor Frank LoMonte argued that while the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and press, it may be missing a crucial point – there's more to the constitutional debate.

In a 1977 case, Sherrill v. Knight, Washington correspondent Robert Sherrill of The Nation was denied a press pass by the Secret Service without providing justification. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Secret Service must provide notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity to respond, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial. These requirements, based on the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment protections, emphasize due process in preventing arbitrary governmental actions.