In a major legal setback for President Donald Trump’s administration, a United States federal judge on Thursday directed the White House to immediately restore press access for journalists representing CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.

US District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was appointed to the federal bench by Trump himself during his first term, issued the order in response to a joint lawsuit filed by the three prominent news organisations challenging the administration's decision to bar their reporters from the complex.

The legal battle commenced after the administration abruptly revoked the hard press passes of the three media outlets over the weekend, barring their correspondents from accessing the White House grounds and taking away their credentials.

Trump had previously defended his decision on social media, alleging that the three news outlets should not be allowed to repeatedly publish what he characterized as false reports, fiction, and lies regarding his presidency.

In response, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico filed a lawsuit on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the administration's arbitrary ban was a clear case of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliatory action against critical journalism.

During a crucial hearing on Wednesday, Judge Kelly expressed deep scepticism regarding the administration's actions, noting near the start of the court proceedings that basic constitutional due process was clearly not followed in this instance.

The judge pointed out that the administration had revoked the press credentials without giving the news organisations prior notice or a fair opportunity to contest the decision, which runs counter to established legal precedents regarding press access.

Appearing for the media organisations, prominent attorney Theodore Boutrous urged the court to step in immediately, stressing that the administration's unexpected action came completely out of the blue and severely harmed the public interest.

Boutrous emphasised the extreme urgency of the matter before the judge, pointing out that critical global events were unfolding, world leaders were arriving in Washington, and the nation was effectively at war.

The media organisations' counsel further argued that the administration was attempting to use national security as a convenient magic word to justify what was fundamentally a retaliatory move against routine press coverage.

On the other hand, the US Department of Justice stoutly mounted a legal defence for the administration, insisting that press access to the presidential complex is not an absolute constitutional right.

Department of Justice attorney Michael Velchik argued in court that access to the White House remains a privilege rather than a right, asserting that the president retains the inherent authority to exclude anyone he chooses from places like the Oval Office.

In its official court filings, the Department of Justice argued that the White House functions as both the primary workplace and official residence of the Commander-in-Chief, giving the government a compelling interest in enforcing standards.

Government lawyers claimed that the president concluded the three outlets failed to maintain minimum standards of professionalism and decorum required of White House correspondents, specifically accusing them of publishing sensitive or classified information.

The government filing went so far as to assert that the administration possesses the authority to regulate reporters' entry to restricted presidential spaces, such as the Oval Office, even if such decisions were motivated by viewpoint discrimination.

Furthermore, the Justice Department denied that the ban was retaliatory in nature, claiming that identical actions would have been taken regardless of the media houses' critical stance towards Trump.

To support this claim, the Department of Justice noted that the administration had not revoked access for several other media organisations that had published similarly critical reports about the president.

Although the government cited grave national security risks and breaches of journalistic decorum to bolster its stance, attorney Boutrous countered that the reporting cited by officials was merely garden-variety reporting.

Boutrous highlighted that the administration's legal defense shifted toward national security concerns only after Trump's initial public statements focused almost exclusively on his personal dissatisfaction with negative news coverage.

The ruling by Judge Kelly represents a significant initial victory for the press freedom lawsuit, requiring the White House to reinstate full press credentials while the broader legal proceedings continue.

ANI