After the decision that restored its access to the White House.. Afaq News and two media organizations move to prevent Trump from banning them again

- The news organizations targeted by President Donald Trump's attempt to prevent them from entering the White House requested a federal judge on Monday evening to extend his order that temporarily restored their right to enter, describing the ban as an "illegal assault on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." The new lawsuit, filed by lawyers for Afaq News, MS NOW, and Politico, stated that the actions taken by the administration were "retaliatory" against the news organizations, even after the judge ordered the White House to allow them back in, only confirming that "the motive is to punish and intimidate the press that they do not like."

Last week, U.S. District Judge Tim Kelly issued a temporary restraining order requiring the White House to reactivate press credentials for journalists working at the three organizations, after they were suspended earlier this month, preventing journalists from entering the White House grounds. Kelly initially rejected the White House's claims that national security concerns prompted Trump to ban these organizations.

However, the judge - appointed by Trump during his first term - indicated that he would consider additional evidence explaining this alleged justification. But the media argued that even as the administration attempted to promote the national security argument in court, Trump and other officials stated that the ban aimed to punish negative media coverage.

The organizations stated: "President Trump continued to justify the ban by citing his hatred for the coverage of the plaintiffs and his administration, without even mentioning national security." The media also pointed to Attorney General Todd Blanche's appearance at a press conference on Sunday, where he described the national security threat as a result of "one-sided media coverage" from some outlets.

The media stated: "The real reason that the defendants imposed the ban - which has been expressed at the time and repeatedly since then - is that the president does not like what he considers to be 'negative' reports published by the plaintiffs." Judge Kelly's decision allowed the media to enter the White House for two weeks, and on Thursday, the press credentials that the administration had confiscated under the ban were restored and reactivated.

However, the administration refused to allow the Afq News network to accompany Trump on board Air Force One during his trip to Tennessee on Saturday, as a member of the television coverage team assigned to follow him that day. It is worth noting that the White House television coverage team is a smaller group of news organizations that take turns covering the president's events and movements, which does not allow for all accredited White House journalists to have access.

The media organizations in their new lawsuit referred to the coverage team's incident on Saturday to emphasize that "the White House continued to apply the ban in an unexpected and inconsistent manner." The media organizations stated: "The White House's words and actions leave no doubt that it would immediately reimpose a complete ban on Afq News, MS NOW, and POLITICO if given the opportunity."

Judge Kelly explained in his ruling regarding the temporary restraining order that legal precedents affirm the right of media to receive prior notice of the possibility of being banned and to be given an opportunity to challenge the decision, making the White House's failure to do so a potential violation of the due process clause in the Constitution. In addition to the due process arguments, the media organizations are challenging the ban based on the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Judge Kelly's order expires on October 8, and the organizations are requesting a preliminary injunction that would maintain their access to the White House while the case is pending in federal court in Washington, D.C. A preliminary injunction would also pave the way for Trump to challenge the decision with the aim of reimposing restrictions on journalists' access.

The media organizations urged Judge Kelly to adopt a broader legal basis to keep Trump's ban suspended, emphasizing the alleged violations of the First Amendment, alongside the due process arguments they presented. The organizations wrote: "Because no artificial measures, no matter how they are structured, can allow for the imposition of a 'ban on a free press' under the First Amendment, issuing a preliminary injunction based on the First Amendment prevents further 'maneuvering,' as the plaintiffs' lawyers warned during the hearing on the temporary restraining order."

When Trump announced on September 18 his ban on news organizations, he said he was doing so because of their "continued publication of fake news!" Since then, the White House has cited reports published by these organizations regarding the Iranian war, the construction of the celebration hall in the East Wing, and even the midterm Republican Party conference, claiming that their coverage "threatened national security and/or spread misleading information."

The messages issued by the White House - which highlighted those reports - gave the media organizations a deadline until 5 PM on Friday to contest the policy in place, before Trump makes a "final" decision to ban them. The Justice Department claimed that those messages and the procedures outlined in them were sufficient to dispel concerns regarding the guarantees of "due process"; a claim rejected by Judge Kelly in his ruling last week, considering that the administration failed to convince him that the situation represented an "extraordinary" circumstance.

The Trump administration has until Friday to respond to the legal memorandum submitted on Monday, while the media organizations will submit a final written plea by next Monday. Kelly stated that he would set a date for a hearing and that he intends to issue a ruling in the case "promptly."