WASHINGTON, Sept. 21, 2026 / CNN, MS NOW and Politico said Monday they are filing a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking restoration of their journalists’ access to the White House, escalating a confrontation over presidential press access into a major First Amendment court battle.

The three news organizations said they notified the government Monday that they were bringing the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They are seeking emergency relief, meaning hearings on their request to restore access could begin as soon as this week. Reuters reported that the White House had not immediately commented on the legal action.

The dispute began after President Donald Trump announced on September 18 that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from the White House, accusing the organizations of producing what he described as “fake news” and criticizing coverage he considered unfair or negative. Trump also suggested that additional news organizations could face similar restrictions.

The ban was enforced Saturday when CNN senior White House reporter Betsy Klein, MS NOW correspondent Akayla Gardner and Politico White House reporter Cheyenne Haslett attempted to enter the complex. Their credentials had been disabled, and the journalists were denied entry; AP reported that press badges were also confiscated.

In a joint statement Monday, the organizations said they were going to court to defend their First Amendment rights and the principle that government officials should not determine what news organizations publish. They contend that their credentials were revoked because the administration objected to their reporting and that they were not provided adequate notice or a process to challenge the decision.

The lawsuit is expected to raise two central constitutional questions: whether excluding particular news organizations because of their coverage amounts to prohibited viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, and whether revoking established White House credentials without notice and an opportunity to respond violates Fifth Amendment due-process protections.

A major precedent is the 1977 D.C. Circuit decision in Sherrill v. Knight. The appeals court held that although journalists do not possess an unlimited right to enter the White House, the government must provide procedural safeguards when denying a bona fide journalist a White House press pass. The court required notice of the factual grounds for denial, an opportunity to respond and a written explanation of the final decision. It also recognized significant First Amendment interests surrounding access made generally available to the White House press corps.

The issue resurfaced during Trump’s first administration. In 2018, a federal judge temporarily restored CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s White House credentials after they were revoked following a contentious presidential news conference. The court focused heavily on procedural due-process concerns. In 2020, the D.C. Circuit also ruled in favor of journalist Brian Karem in a dispute involving suspension of his White House hard pass, finding that journalists must receive adequate notice of the conduct that can lead to sanctions.

However, the broader legal question of presidential control over access remains contested. In litigation brought by The Associated Press after the Trump administration restricted its access to certain presidential events in 2025, a federal district judge initially sided with AP, but a divided federal appeals court later allowed some White House restrictions to remain in effect while the litigation proceeded. That case illustrates that courts distinguish between general White House credentials and access to smaller, highly limited presidential events such as Oval Office gatherings or Air Force One pools.

The White House Correspondents’ Association has backed the three organizations and called for their access to be restored. WHCA President Jacqui Heinrich said the dispute has implications beyond CNN, MS NOW and Politico because a rule allowing exclusion based on unfavorable coverage could potentially be applied to other news organizations.

The case therefore could become an important test of how far a president may go in controlling physical access to the White House while remaining within constitutional protections for freedom of the press.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico have said they will continue covering the Trump administration regardless of the outcome of the access dispute. For now, the immediate question moves to federal court, where a judge could soon decide whether the three organizations should regain their White House credentials while the larger constitutional case proceeds.