The networks Afaq News and MS Now and the site Politico sue Trump for blocking their access to the White House

- Three American news media outlets, which were banned by President Donald Trump from entering the White House, namely Afaq News, MS NOW, and Politico, have filed a lawsuit to regain access to the White House. The urgent request is set to be presented to a federal judge in the District Court of Washington, D.C., which could lead to hearings and legal arguments from the administration as early as this week.

The three news organizations stated in a joint statement on Monday: "We informed the government this morning that we will file a lawsuit today to protect our rights guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution, and to defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes." The news organizations added: "The White House revoked our journalists' press credentials without prior notice or formal procedure, in objection to our news coverage.

Failing to address this matter threatens press freedom and the public's right to independent journalism free from government interference." This dispute is one of the most significant attacks the administration has launched against the press so far, as it has implications that extend far beyond the three news organizations affected by the ban. Trump stated last Friday - when announcing the ban - that he may add other organizations to the list.

Reporters from Afaq News, MS NOW, and Politico are unable to access their workplaces inside the White House. Additionally, reporters from Afaq News and MS NOW have been prohibited from using their television equipment and camera locations.

Afaq News was excluded on Monday from the joint media coverage duties undertaken by major news organizations, as the network was scheduled to handle the joint television coverage and accompany the president on his trip to New York that day. Afaq News has reached out to the White House for a comment regarding the lawsuit, but has not received a response yet.

A number of legal experts and First Amendment scholars have already described this ban as widely unconstitutional, condemning it as a sudden and discriminatory measure that harms the ability of the media to cover national issues. The lawsuit filed by the media organizations is expected to heavily rely on the vague justifications that Trump provided on Friday for revoking the press credentials, where he stated that he was not satisfied with the "negative stories."

The president also said, "If they want to write them, that’s fine; but I am not obligated to allow them into the people's house." At least one official in the Trump administration stated in a television interview on Sunday that he believes a Supreme Court ruling from 1965 - regarding the government's refusal to issue passports for trips to Cuba - would support Trump's position.

After Trump announced the ban on the three media organizations from entering the White House due to his dissatisfaction with their coverage, the validity of the press credentials that allow journalists to enter the White House was revoked. On Saturday, both MSNBC correspondent Akilah Gardner, and Horizon News correspondent Betsy Klein, and Politico correspondent Cheyenne Haslett attempted to enter the White House grounds to cover the news, but the Secret Service prevented them from entering and confiscated their press credentials.

Courts have rejected - even recently - similar bans that Trump and other White House officials have attempted to impose on specific journalists or media organizations; the courts have clearly affirmed that journalists cannot be barred from covering news at the White House based on what they say or publish in the context of that coverage. The current dispute revolves around a legal concept related to the First Amendment known as "viewpoint discrimination," as Trump explicitly stated his reasons for wanting to ban certain media organizations due to their coverage, which he perceives as "negative."

In contrast, courts have consistently prohibited this type of discrimination and protected journalists' rights in numerous cases. The district court in Washington, D.C. - which will hear the case of the three news organizations on Monday - includes several judges who have ruled in favor of press freedom and against the Trump administration due to discriminatory policies, especially since Trump took office last year.

The Federal Appeals Court in Washington, D.C. established a legal principle stating that the White House cannot revoke press credentials without granting journalists the right to due process, especially when White House facilities are accessible to the general press and in the absence of any national security concerns. This legal precedent dates back to 1977, when the Secret Service revoked the press access permit of Robert Sherrill, a reporter for The Nation magazine.

Federal courts in Washington reinstated the permit, ruling that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia at the time stated that "the refusal to grant a press access permit to the White House does not constitute a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution unless it is based on the content of what the journalist is presenting, or if it involves discrimination against a category of protected forms of expression." The court also wrote: "It is not only journalists and the publications they write for that are concerned, but the general public also has an interest protected by the First Amendment in ensuring that restrictions on news gathering are not more stringent than necessary, and that individual journalists are not arbitrarily excluded from sources of information."

During both of Trump's presidential terms, journalists - such as Jim Acosta, who previously worked for OANN, and Brian Karem, a reporter for Playboy magazine - and the Associated Press were barred from entering the White House to cover events. Courts largely sided with journalists in each case, relying on the 1977 legal precedent, although the courts did not go so far as to say that obtaining a press access permit to the White House should be unrestricted.

Both OANN and MSNBC, along with Politico, enlisted attorney Ted Boutros — a specialist in First Amendment cases who represented OANN in court during the Acosta case in 2018 — to represent them in the upcoming lawsuit scheduled for Monday. The three news organizations emphasized that their coverage of the Trump administration would continue regardless of the restrictions imposed on access to the White House.

OANN stated in a statement over the weekend that "the network's mission to cover news about the U.S. government will continue regardless of any attempts to restrict actual access to the White House and other government buildings, or any other attempts to obstruct our journalistic work."