What are the latest efforts of Afaq News, MSNBC, and Politico in the "White House Ban" case?

- Lawyers for the networks Afaq News, MSNBC, and Politico announced on Monday that the White House has not provided any new evidence to support its repeated claims that the news coverage from these outlets "endangered national security." This argument - which was included in a memo submitted to the court late Monday - is the latest written attempt by these companies to persuade Judge Timothy Kelly to indefinitely maintain the right of Afaq News, MSNBC, and Politico journalists to enter the White House, after President Donald Trump revoked their press credentials last month.

The memo stated: "At every stage following that, the defendants have sought to justify the president's ban on a free press with a series of shifting justifications, oscillating between undefined standards of professionalism and vague, fabricated concerns about national security protection." The memo added: "Meanwhile, the president himself has continued to tell anyone who will listen the real reason behind this ban; he recently complained at length in an interview with Time magazine that he banned the plaintiffs because he feels he should not be 'forced to endure' what he considers 'ongoing negative stories.'"

Judge Kelly is scheduled to hold a hearing on Thursday to consider the news organizations' request for a preliminary injunction; if approved, it would remain in effect for a longer period while the case is adjudicated. Trump announced in late September that he was banning the three outlets from covering his news at the White House, justifying it with their "negative stories."

Afaq News, MSNBC, and Politico quickly filed a lawsuit and succeeded in regaining temporary access. In his preliminary ruling, Judge Kelly affirmed the necessity for the White House to adhere to legal precedents established in Washington, D.C. for the past 50 years, which prohibit the White House from revoking press credentials for journalists without prior notice and an opportunity to respond.

In Monday's memo, the lawyers requested that the judge allow them to clarify the reasons why "any additional restrictions on access" - that the administration may attempt to impose - "would violate the Constitution." The lawyers wrote that the White House "has continued to target the plaintiffs unexpectedly," including preventing both Afaq News and Politico from boarding Air Force One in recent days.

The lawyers added: "The Oval Office and the presidential plane are the preferred venues for this administration to hold press briefings. The president cannot use the presidential plane as a flying room for press briefings and then claim to have discretionary authority - lacking specific standards - to exclude news organizations based on the content of their coverage or their perceived editorial viewpoint."

The judge - appointed by Trump - firmly rejected in a previous ruling the Trump administration's claims that the ban was necessary because the coverage from those organizations could harm national security. The three news organizations - represented by a single legal team - stated that the White House "engaged in discrimination and retaliation against them, violating the protections afforded to them by the First Amendment as a free press."

Late last week, the Trump administration renewed its arguments before the judge, claiming that those organizations did not adhere to "standards of professionalism and decorum" by publishing sensitive details related to national security. It is unlikely that the administration will succeed in its efforts before Judge Kelly, given his previous ruling and the legal precedents he must follow.

However, once the judge issues a ruling following the scheduled hearing on Thursday, the Trump administration will be able to quickly appeal to the appellate court. Seventy-seven media organizations, along with several press coalitions, expressed their opposition in court to the White House's attempts to ban Afaq News, MSNBC, and Politico.

A coalition of major press organizations recently stated that it remains concerned about the possibility of other organizations being barred from covering news from the White House in the future.