Judge Timothy Kelly rightly checks Donald Trump on due process

By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta · September 26, 2026

Judge Timothy Kelly was right to restore White House access for barred outlets, because executive discretion must yield to due process before opponents hold the same tool.

The process is the power

We learned during the Thomas hearings that procedure is where power lives. When the executive branch locks the press room door on a Saturday morning, the correct response is not to trade insults on Truth Social. It is not to compose editorials about the state of our national soul. The correct response is to examine the record and check the docket. Test the mechanism against the day your political opponents hold the tool.

President Donald Trump announced a ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House. He cited an alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity in the reporting. According to reporting by TheWrap and CNN, the administration briefly barred the outlets. Officials also blocked CNN from flying on Air Force One. Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik attempted to justify the sudden exclusion. He argued that the president must take immediate action to protect national security in the Rose Garden.

That is not how the rule of law operates. Executive discretion does not expand to swallow constitutional safeguards. A press aide cannot erase them with a late-filed memo about national security. Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed to the federal bench by Donald Trump, issued a temporary restraining order at 1 a.m. ET. The order reinstated press credentials for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. Judge Kelly wrote that he was skeptical on that record. He doubted that safeguarding national security was the actual motivation for revoking the passes. He doubted the ban advanced that goal. Judge Kelly characterized the later explanations as ambiguous. He noted that the flagged stories were routine. Officials afforded no reason to believe the reporters' possession of hard passes was integral to the stories identified.

This brings us directly to the parallel of Jim Acosta's White House press pass revocation. In November 2018, CNN and Acosta sued the administration after his credentials were pulled following a contentious press conference. The shared mechanism is absolute and uncomplicated. The executive branch cannot revoke press credentials based on content-based discrimination without providing the due process required by law. In both instances, the administration reached for an administrative shortcut to punish unfavorable coverage. In both instances, the constitutional remedy was found in the rigid application of procedural fairness, not in political accommodation.

The fifty-year-old doctrine on trial

The strongest opposing case for the administration rests on executive prerogative over federal property. As the White House statement declared, access is a privilege, not a right. The Department of Justice went further in court filings. It argued that the 1977 D.C. Circuit decision in Sherrill v. Knight is wrong and should be overruled. That precedent requires due process before press passes are revoked. The government argues that the head of the executive branch must possess authority to manage his official residence and workplace. That discretion would apply especially when dealing with organizations that wage continuous public opposition.

This argument collapses the moment you test it against the day your opponents hold the tool. A rule that only works while your people hold power was never a rule at all. An executive cannot strip credentials on an unreviewed claim of dishonesty. If permitted, a future administration of a different party will use that same mechanism. It could ban conservative outlets, religious broadcasters, or independent commentators who displease the reigning power. Judge Kelly was bound to follow case law requiring due process. His ruling deserves the respect of every citizen who values a stable republic.

As reported by Dawn, television networks resumed coverage of presidential events on Friday after a week of standoff. They provided live pool access for Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit. During the initial days of the ban, other networks refused to set up cameras in solidarity. There was no pool coverage of the first two days of the visit. Collective pushback remains an effective shield when administrative overreach threatens the corps. Yet the temporary restraining order issued by Judge Kelly lasts fourteen days, expiring on October 8. The legal battle is far from settled.

The test ahead

We are left with a system straining under executive aggrandizement and congressional abdication. The administration has made its intent clear. It seeks to dismantle the procedural protections that shield the press from arbitrary retaliation.

The legal machinery is now set for a high-stakes collision. The media outlets must file requests for preliminary injunctions by Monday. The administration must respond by Friday, October 2. Final written submissions are due Monday, October 5. The dispute may ultimately land before a panel of the D.C. Circuit, the full circuit en banc, or the Supreme Court. When the judiciary evaluates these briefs, it must look past the political noise of cable news ratings and Truth Social posts. Legitimacy is a capital stock that spends fast and refills slowly. The federal courts cannot trade away established due process to accommodate the short-term grievances of any president.

The courts must uphold the preliminary injunction. They must preserve the due process standard against an executive branch attempting to rewrite access rules to punish critics.

Judge Timothy Kelly rightly checks Donald Trump on due process

The process is the power

The fifty-year-old doctrine on trial

The test ahead

Sources