Wayne Unger, Quinnipiac University
The president is going after the press again. On Sept. 19, 2026, journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were denied access to the White House after President Donald Trump revoked their credentials, citing “their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!”
Why it matters: The dispute is almost certainly unconstitutional under the First Amendment. But it also turns on Fifth Amendment protections against arbitrary government action without due process of law.
The latest ban
Trump wrote that “Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES” when covering the president.
This is not his first attempt at banning journalists from the White House. During his first term, he sought to ban CNN’s Jim Acosta by revoking his credentials following a contentious news conference about the 2018 midterm elections.
CNN sued quickly, warning that the White House action could create a “dangerous chilling effect” for journalists covering elected officials. Journalism organizations — including the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Radio Television Digital News Association and Acosta’s peers at The Daily Caller — condemned the ban.
What happened next: A federal court granted CNN a temporary injunction, reinstating Acosta’s press pass. The Trump administration later restored his credentials, and CNN dropped its lawsuit.
The First Amendment issue
The White House Correspondents’ Association said the action revoking access for CNN, Politico and MS NOW “violates the First Amendment.”
Even Jonathan Turley, who staunchly supports Republicans and frequently criticizes the press, said the ban “would be an assault on long-honored principles of a free press.”
The key point: The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” It guarantees all Americans freedom to speak and publish without government interference.
But there is no Supreme Court precedent that specifically provides a clear constitutional right of access to the White House, even though past presidents have honored and respected the press’s access to the executive branch.
The Fifth Amendment issue
The judge who restored Acosta’s press pass in 2018 primarily based the ruling on the reporter’s Fifth Amendment rights to due process, not on the First Amendment.
What that means: Before the federal government deprives an individual of life, liberty or property, it must provide due process — protections meant to prevent arbitrary governmental actions.
In Sherrill v. Knight, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Secret Service could not deny a White House press pass without “narrow and specific standards.” The White House had to give:
- Notice of the factual bases for denial
- An opportunity to respond
- A final written statement of the reasons for denial
The court found that the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment work together: A reporter’s First Amendment liberty interest “may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.”
What could decide the case
The current journalists’ lawsuit, filed Sept. 21, 2026, leads with the claim that the Trump administration violated CNN, MS NOW and Politico’s Fifth Amendment right to due process.
The Supreme Court’s 1976 decision in Mathews v. Eldridge says due process is flexible, depending on the liberty or property interest at stake. Generally, though, it requires notice and an opportunity to present a case before a deprivation occurs.
The missing process: Based on public reporting, the Trump administration did not provide CNN, MS NOW or Politico with clear written notice explaining why their press passes were revoked. It also did not give them an opportunity to rebut Trump’s claim that they report “FICTION and LIES.”
“Even if attending a White House event is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, that doesn’t mean the government is free to take it away as punishment.”
What to watch
The same Trump-appointed judge who decided the CNN Acosta case has been assigned to the latest press-ban case.
Bottom line: If the Acosta case is any indication, the judge could promptly but temporarily reinstate the outlets’ press passes while Trump argues that the revocations are constitutional. The central question is not only whether the ban burdens a free press, but whether the government stripped access without notice, reasons or a fair chance to respond.
Read the original article.
