华盛顿特区地方法院法官蒂姆·凯利（Tim Kelly）结束了周三就唐纳德·特朗普总统的举动是否取缔三家新闻机构白宫在听取了双方的意见后没有做出裁决，这违反了宪法政府还没有接近为其对CNN、MSNOW和政治的媒体禁令提出一个坚实的法律案例。
“我会考虑你今天告诉我的事情，并尽快给你一个答复，”凯利在听证会结束时告诉律师。
CNN、MSNOW和政治申请临时禁止令在特朗普上周晚些时候实施禁令后，恢复他们的记者进入白宫建筑群。在诉讼中，新闻机构称特朗普的决定是“对第一修正案的直接攻击”，是“对我们最基本的宪法原则的公然违反”。
上周，特朗普在一篇社交媒体帖子中说，“媒体在报道美国总统、特朗普政府或美利坚合众国时，不应该不断地写或报道虚构和谎言。”在周一的一篇社交媒体帖子中，特朗普补充说，禁止记者不是“对自由媒体的攻击”，而是“对假新闻的攻击”，他声称这是对国家安全的“威胁”。
这司法部为禁令辩护引用了每个媒体的具体故事，称其违反了“专业和礼仪标准”，因为“在国家安全和其他问题上传播可证实的谎言，并发布敏感或机密信息。”
代表新闻机构的特德·布特罗斯（Ted Boutrous）周三表示，白宫发布的一些报道是几个月前的事了，有些报道是记者写的，他们随后更新了通行证。他说，此举是政府掩盖特朗普禁令背后的真实动机的“懦弱”行为。
“总统本人没有发现任何可以证明这一点的故事。他否认那件事。因此，这只是一种文字上的事后努力，为公然违反正当程序进行辩护，”布特罗斯说。
特朗普的“我们的主要证人”：布特罗斯
布特罗斯告诉法庭，特朗普基本上是本案的“主要证人”，因为他一直在表明自己的观点：禁令是观点和内容驱动的。
布特罗斯说，特朗普“通过社交帖子，在椭圆形办公室，一遍又一遍地宣布”，他正在对新闻机构实施禁令，“因为报道太负面了。”
“他一直在证明我们的观点，”布特罗斯说。＂他确实是我们这里的主要证人。＂
上周在椭圆形办公室的一次活动中，特朗普提到了“负面”报道。
“真恶心。我是说，一个允许人们故意写负面文章的国家有问题。如果他们想写，没问题。但我没有让他们进入我的，进入人们的房子，”特朗普当时说。
凯利在2018年批准了前美国有线电视新闻网记者吉姆阿科斯塔恢复他的白宫硬通行证在第一次王牌行政，主持周三的听证会。
凯利表示，他认为白宫未能遵循早期法院案件建立的程序，包括涉及阿科斯塔的案件，来终止记者的证件。
司法部律师迈克尔·维尔奇克认为特朗普总统有广泛的权力根据国家安全决定取消商店发给媒体组织的信函提供了充分的正当程序，证明吊销其通行证是合理的。
“进入白宫是一种特权，而不是权利，”维尔奇克说。
凯利指出，他没有权力推翻法律先例，反驳了维尔奇克的说法。
布特罗斯在听证会结束时认为，特朗普的行为违反了“从一开始就统治这个国家的第一修正案原则”，并敦促法官迅速做出裁决。
“这些是紧急事项。我们在打仗。我们有世界领导人来华盛顿，”他说。“这种伤害是无法弥补。公众利益倾向于推翻这样的违宪行为。”
Judge concludes Trump＇s White House media ban hearing with no ruling
D．C． District Court Judge Tim Kelly ended a Wednesday hearing on whether President Donald Trump＇s movebanning three news organizationsfrom the White House violates the Constitution with no ruling after hearing arguments from both sides -- but suggested theadministration hasn’t come close to making a solid legal case for its media ban on CNN， MSNOW and Politico．
＂I＇ll consider what you＇ve told me today and try to get you an answer as soon as I can，＂ Kelly told the attorneys at the conclusion of the hearing．
CNN， MSNOW and Politicorequested a temporary restraining orderto restore their reporters＇ access to the White House complex after Trump instituted the ban late last week． In the lawsuit， the news organizations called Trump＇s decision at ＂direct assault on the First Amendment＂ and a ＂blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles．＂
Last week， in a social media post， Trump said that the ＂Media Outlets shouldn＇t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they＇re covering the President of the United States， the Trump Administration， or the United States of America．＂ In a social media post on Monday， Trump added that the barring of journalists was not ＂an assault on the Free Press＂ but instead ＂an assault on the FAKE NEWS，＂ which he claimed was a national security ＂threat．＂
TheDepartment of Justice defended the ban， citing specific stories from each outlet that it claimed violated ＂standards of professionalism and decorum＂ by “trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues， and publishing sensitive or classified information．＂
Ted Boutrous， who is representing the news organizations， argued on Wednesday that some of the stories that the White House put forward were months old and in some cases were written by reporters who subsequently had their hard passes renewed． He said the move was a ＂cowardly＂ act by the administration to mask Trump＇s real motive behind the bans．
＂There are no stories identified by the president himself that would have justified this． He disclaimed that． So this is just a textual post hoc effort to justify just a blatant violation of due process，＂ Boutrous said．
Trump＇s ＇our lead witness，＇： Boutrous
Boutrous told the court that Trump is essentially the ＂lead witness＂ in the case， because he keeps making their point： that the ban is viewpoint and content-driven．
Boutrous said that Trump ＂declared through social posts， in the Oval Office， over and over and over again＂ that he was instituting the ban on the news organization ＂because the coverage was too negative．＂
＂He keeps proving our point，＂ Boutrous said． ＂He is really our lead witness here．＂
At an event in the Oval Office last week， Trump mentioned ＂negative＂ coverage．
＂It＇s sick． I mean， there＇s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stuff． Now， if they want to write them， that＇s fine． But I don＇t have to let them into my， into the people＇s house，＂ Trump said at the time．
Kelly， who in 2018 granted a request from formerCNNcorrespondent Jim Acosta to restore his White House hard pass during the firstTrumpadministration， presided over Wednesday＇s hearing．
Kelly signaled that he believes the White House failed to follow the process established by earlier court cases -- including the one involving Acosta -- to terminate a reporter’s credential．
Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchikargued that President Trump has broad authority to remove outlets based on national security determinations andthe letters sent to the media organizations provided sufficient due process to justify revoking their passes．
＂Access to the White House is a privilege， not a right，＂ Velchik said．
Kelly noted that he doesn＇t have the authority to overrule legal precedents， pushing back on Velchik＇s assertion．
Boutrous concluded the hearing by arguing that Trump’s conduct violates ＂First Amendment principles that have governed this country from the beginning of time＂ and urged the judge to issue a speedy ruling．
＂These are urgent matters． We＇re at war． We have world leaders coming to Washington，＂ he said． ＂That harm is irreparable． The public interest favors striking down unconstitutional acts like that．＂
