Reporters Committee says the injunction ends a "blatantly unconstitutional attempt" to punish news outlets
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the PressLegal organization for journalists, in a statement by president Bruce D. Brown on its website
After Judge Timothy Kelly granted the preliminary injunction, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press issued a statement from its president, Bruce D. Brown, saying the court had ended "a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to punish news outlets for coverage the president doesn't like". Brown said the ruling also protects other White House pass holders and the public.
“The court has put an end to a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to punish news outlets for coverage the president doesn't like. The decision protects not only CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, but all the other holders of White House passes who continued to work under the threat of retaliation — and of course the public, which deserves timely and accurate information from a press corps free from government intimidation.”
Official statement
Where this statement fits
Should President Trump bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over their coverage?
On Friday, September 18, 2026, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that, "effective immediately, I am banning" CNN, MS NOW and Politico "from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" About an hour later, in the Oval Office, he said no particular story prompted the decision, that he does not want the outlets "in my office," and that "somebody has a right to keep them away" if outlets write false stories. The three outlets and press-freedom groups oppose the exclusion, citing constitutional protection for the press, and the White House Correspondents' Association said it "stands in defense of our colleagues at CNN, MSNOW, and POLITICO." On Saturday, September 19, MS NOW, CNN and Politico said their White House reporters were refused entry and had press passes confiscated; the White House referred questions to Trump's earlier remarks. The dispute is over whether President Trump should exclude named news organizations from White House access over what they report.
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
The organization's own statement on rcfp.org responding to Judge Timothy Kelly's October 13 preliminary injunction.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The statement followed Judge Kelly's October 13 ruling. The organization summarized it as holding that the administration unlawfully retaliated and discriminated against the outlets and failed to provide fair warning before revoking their press credentials.
After the quotation
The organization noted that, the previous month, it and dozens of media organizations had filed two friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the outlets' lawsuit.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is Trump's ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over their coverage. The Reporters Committee calls the ban a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to punish the outlets and welcomes the court's order against it. We use Condemned because it rejects the ban outright. Challenged the characterization is the closest competing label; it loses because the statement does more than dispute the administration's stated reasons for the ban.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Donald Trump
More from this case
Read the full caseFreedom of the Press Foundation calls the ruling a "stinging defeat" for the press ban
Freedom of the Press Foundation
“This decision is a stinging defeat for Trump's assault on the free press and a powerful vindication of the First Amendment. As Judge Kelly recognized, presidents don't get to use their power to purge journalists because they don't like what they report.”Read statement
CNN chief Mark Thompson says the network will fight the ban "to the end"
“To me, it's a vote of confidence in free speech and our right, not really so much for ourselves but on behalf of the public everywhere ... No matter how many court cases, investigations, court appearances, and all the expense that that entails, we will fight this one to the end”Read statement
Boutrous says the court was right to block the White House press ban
“The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound ... The Court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on the free press’ for the foreseeable future.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Reporters Committee says the injunction ends a "blatantly unconstitutional attempt" to punish news outlets
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6252-after-judge-timothy-kelly-granted-the-preliminary-injunction
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Reporters Committee says the injunction ends a "blatantly unconstitutional attempt" to punish news outlets". First published: 2026-10-20. Last updated: 2026-10-20. https://disputeindex.com/events/6252-after-judge-timothy-kelly-granted-the-preliminary-injunction