Judge hears arguments without immediately ruling in lawsuit over White House ban on 3 news outlets

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge weighing whether to block President Donald Trump’s ban of three news outlets from White House grounds expressed some skepticism Wednesday in response to the government's defense of the move.U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated by Trump in 2017, didn't rule from the bench after hearing arguments in an extraordinary showdown between Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes.But the judge questioned whether the administration met its legal responsibilities and provided CNN, MS NOW and Politico with adequate due process before banning them, assailing what he called “fake news.” More recently, the president has said negative coverage was dangerous for the country.The news outlets argued they were singled out because of their coverage content — in other words, viewpoint discrimination — and called the ban a “blatant violation” of the First Amendment.Kelly said his decision must be guided by prior rulings in comparable First Amendment cases, even if the government disagrees with them.“I think it is fair to say that the processes that the court laid out wasn’t followed here,” Kelly said.It wasn't clear when Kelly, who ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar 2018 case, would issue a decision on the outlets’ request for a restraining order. But he said he’d rule as soon as possible.“These are urgent matters," Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the outlets, said.

We have world leaders coming to Washington.”CNN, Politico and MS NOW each told The Associated Press they’d have no comment on the emergency hearing.Prior rulings indicate journalists should be heard before press passes are revokedKelly opened by reminding both sides that he’s required to apply case precedent.The rulings in two prior cases over press access — including one that went to the U.S. Supreme Court — made clear that journalists were entitled to an opportunity to be heard before they have their press passes revoked.Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that the rulings in the earlier cases were wrong.“Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” Velchik said.In arguing that Trump was not engaging in viewpoint discrimination, Velchik said the president had criticized other news organizations even more harshly — such as calling ABC “the worst” — but hadn’t banned them.“The president should … But he said he’d rule as soon as possible.CNN, Politico and MS NOW each told The Associated Press they’d have no comment on the emergency hearing.Prior rulings indicate journalists should be heard before press passes are revokedKelly opened by reminding both sides that he’s required to apply case precedent.The rulings in two prior cases over press access — including one that went to the U.S.