After a decision that brought her back into the White House, Ofoq News and two media organizations moved to prevent Trump from banning her again

The news organizations that were targeted by US President Donald Trump's attempt to prevent them from entering the White House asked a federal judge on Monday evening to extend his order that temporarily restored their right of entry, describing the ban as "an illegal assault on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution." The new lawsuit, filed by lawyers for Ofoq News, MS NOW and Politico, said the administration's actions "in retaliation" against news organizations, even after a judge ordered the White House to let them back in, only confirms that their "motive is to punish and intimidate journalism they dislike."

Last week, US District Court Judge Tim Kelly issued a temporary restraining order requiring the White House to reactivate press cards for journalists working in the three institutions, after stopping them earlier this month, preventing journalists from entering the White House grounds. Kelly initially rejected White House claims that national security concerns prompted Trump to ban these institutions.

However, the judge - who was appointed by Trump during his first term - indicated that he would consider additional evidence to explain this alleged justification. But the media argued that even as the administration tried to make a national security case in court, Trump and other officials said the ban was intended to punish negative media coverage.

The institutions said: “President Trump continued to justify the ban under the pretext of his hatred of prosecutors’ coverage of him and his administration, without even mentioning national security.” The media also noted Attorney General Todd Blanche's appearance at a press conference on Sunday, where he described the national security risk as the result of "one-sided media coverage" from some media outlets.

“The defendants’ real reason for imposing the ban — which has been expressed at the time and repeatedly since — is that the president does not like what he sees as ‘negative’ reports published by the plaintiffs,” the media said. Kelly's decision re-allowed the media into the White House for two weeks, and on Thursday, press cards confiscated by the administration under the ban were returned and reactivated.

However, the administration refused to allow the Ofoq News Network to accompany Trump on Air Force One during his trip to Tennessee on Saturday, as a member of the television coverage team assigned to accompany him that day. It is noteworthy that the White House television coverage team is a smaller group of news organizations that cover, on a rotating basis, the president's events and movements, which does not allow access to all journalists accredited to the White House.

In their new lawsuit, the media organizations pointed to the coverage team incident on Saturday to confirm that “the White House continued to implement the ban unexpectedly and inconsistently.” “The White House’s words and actions leave no doubt that it would immediately reimpose a full ban on Ofoq News, MS NOW and POLITICO if given the opportunity,” the media organizations said.

In his ruling on the temporary restraining order, Judge Kelly explained that legal precedent affirms the media's right to advance notice of a possible ban and an opportunity to appeal the decision, making the White House's failure to do so a potential violation of the Constitution's Due Process Clause. Besides due process defenses, media organizations are challenging the ban based on the First Amendment.

Judge Kelly's order expires on October 8, and the organizations are requesting a preliminary injunction to maintain access to the White House while the case is heard in federal court in Washington, DC. Issuing a preliminary injunction would also pave the way for Trump to appeal the decision with the aim of re-imposing restrictions on the entry of journalists.

Media organizations urged Judge Kelly to adopt a broader legal basis for keeping Trump's ban in abeyance, while emphasizing the alleged violations of the First Amendment, along with the due process defenses she had advanced. “Because no artificial measures, whatever they may be, can enable a First Amendment ‘ban on a free press,’ issuing a preliminary injunction based on the First Amendment precludes further ‘maneuvering,’ as plaintiffs’ attorneys warned during the temporary restraining order hearing,” the organizations wrote.

When Trump announced on September 18 that he was banning news organizations, he said he was doing so because of their “continuous spreading of fake news!” Since then, the White House has cited reports published by these organizations on the Iran War, the construction of the East Wing Ballroom, and even the Republican midterm convention, to claim that their coverage “threatened national security and/or spread disinformation.”

The letters issued by the White House - which shed light on these reports - gave media organizations a deadline of 5 pm on Friday to object to the policy, before Trump makes a “final” decision to ban them. The Department of Justice claimed that those letters and the procedures described therein were sufficient to allay concerns regarding “due process” guarantees; It is an argument that Judge Kelly rejected in his ruling last week, saying that the administration had failed to convince him that the situation represented an “exceptional” circumstance.

The Trump administration has until Friday to respond to the legal memorandum submitted on Monday, while media organizations will submit a final written argument by next Monday. Kelly has said that he will schedule a hearing, and that he intends to issue a ruling in the case “expeditiously.”