Tag: Deadline News

The Justice Department argued that Donald Trump can legally ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House because he determined that they didn’t meet the “minimum requirements of professionalism.”

Last month, a federal judge granted the three outlets a temporary restraining order that forced the White House to reinstate dozens of their reporters’ hard passes. The outlets are now asking the judge to extend that 14-day order for a longer term via a preliminary injunction, claiming that Trump’s ban is a violation of their First and Fifth amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, has said that he is bound by the precedent set in In a 1977 D.C. Circuit opinion, Sherrill vs. Knight, in which the judges ruled that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.”

In a court filing on Friday, the DOJ claimed that the Sherrill case still would allow for the president to restrict the three outlets from accessing the White House grounds because the White House has a “compelling interest.”

The DOJ lawyers claimed that the Sherrill decision does not “prevent the President from concluding that bona fide journalists would identify sources instead of relying on anonymous sources, commit to factual accuracy, and provide the White House an opportunity to comment, rather than ‘perform their duties in a way that … interfere[s] with the White House’s daily operations.’ …At a bare minimum, it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information.”

The news outlets’ legal team has rejected that assertion, writing in a filing earlier this week that Trump’s “statements also make clear he implemented the ban to coerce more favorable coverage from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and to deter other journalists and news organizations from newsgathering and reporting that the President might view as negative. And his administration has continued to retaliate against Plaintiffs even after the temporary restraining order, only underscoring that Defendants’ motive is to punish and chill journalism they dislike.”

Even as access to the White House grounds has been reinstated, the White House has continued to restrict CNN from coverage of TV pool assignments, including travel with Trump on Air Force One.

The outlets’ lawyers, led by Theodore Boutrous Jr., also noted that Trump and other White House officials “overlooked that the First Amendment protects reporting on matters affecting national security.”

Kelly has set a hearing for Thursday on the news outlets’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

In granting a TRO, Kelly concluded that the White House failed to provide due process to the news outlets.

The DOJ has pointed to letters sent to the outlets as evidence that they were given due process. But those letters were sent on Sept. 22, four days after Trump’s ban was started.

The judge also has noted that some of the objectionable stories cited by the DOJ do not have to do with national security. Kelly wrote in his order that “even the justifications provided to Plaintiffs after this case was filed are ambiguous about the true purpose of the revocations: while Defendants’ letters to Plaintiffs mention national security concerns, they purport to identify reporting that ‘threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods’ leaving open the possibility that all the stories fall into the later bucket, rather than the former.”

The Justice Department argued that Donald Trump can legally ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House because he determined that they didn’t meet the “minimum requirements of professionalism.”

Last month, a federal judge granted the three outlets a temporary restraining order that forced the White House to reinstate dozens of their reporters’ hard passes. The outlets are now asking the judge to extend that 14-day order for a longer term via a preliminary injunction, claiming that Trump’s ban is a violation of their First and Fifth amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, has said that he is bound by the precedent set in In a 1977 D.C. Circuit opinion, Sherrill vs. Knight, in which the judges ruled that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.”

In a court filing on Friday, the DOJ claimed that the Sherrill case still would allow for the president to restrict the three outlets from accessing the White House grounds because the White House has a “compelling interest.”

The DOJ lawyers claimed that the Sherrill decision does not “prevent the President from concluding that bona fide journalists would identify sources instead of relying on anonymous sources, commit to factual accuracy, and provide the White House an opportunity to comment, rather than ‘perform their duties in a way that … interfere[s] with the White House’s daily operations.’ …At a bare minimum, it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information.”

The news outlets’ legal team has rejected that assertion, writing in a filing earlier this week that Trump’s “statements also make clear he implemented the ban to coerce more favorable coverage from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and to deter other journalists and news organizations from newsgathering and reporting that the President might view as negative. And his administration has continued to retaliate against Plaintiffs even after the temporary restraining order, only underscoring that Defendants’ motive is to punish and chill journalism they dislike.”

Even as access to the White House grounds has been reinstated, the White House has continued to restrict CNN from coverage of TV pool assignments, including travel with Trump on Air Force One.

The outlets’ lawyers, led by Theodore Boutrous Jr., also noted that Trump and other White House officials “overlooked that the First Amendment protects reporting on matters affecting national security.”

Kelly has set a hearing for Thursday on the news outlets’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

In granting a TRO, Kelly concluded that the White House failed to provide due process to the news outlets.

The DOJ has pointed to letters sent to the outlets as evidence that they were given due process. But those letters were sent on Sept. 22, four days after Trump’s ban was started.

The judge also has noted that some of the objectionable stories cited by the DOJ do not have to do with national security. Kelly wrote in his order that “even the justifications provided to Plaintiffs after this case was filed are ambiguous about the true purpose of the revocations: while Defendants’ letters to Plaintiffs mention national security concerns, they purport to identify reporting that ‘threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods’ leaving open the possibility that all the stories fall into the later bucket, rather than the former.”

The Justice Department argued that Donald Trump can legally ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House because he determined that they didn’t meet the “minimum requirements of professionalism.”

Last month, a federal judge granted the three outlets a temporary restraining order that forced the White House to reinstate dozens of their reporters’ hard passes. The outlets are now asking the judge to extend that 14-day order for a longer term via a preliminary injunction, claiming that Trump’s ban is a violation of their First and Fifth amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, has said that he is bound by the precedent set in In a 1977 D.C. Circuit opinion, Sherrill vs. Knight, in which the judges ruled that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.”

In a court filing on Friday, the DOJ claimed that the Sherrill case still would allow for the president to restrict the three outlets from accessing the White House grounds because the White House has a “compelling interest.”

The DOJ lawyers claimed that the Sherrill decision does not “prevent the President from concluding that bona fide journalists would identify sources instead of relying on anonymous sources, commit to factual accuracy, and provide the White House an opportunity to comment, rather than ‘perform their duties in a way that … interfere[s] with the White House’s daily operations.’ …At a bare minimum, it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information.”

The news outlets’ legal team has rejected that assertion, writing in a filing earlier this week that Trump’s “statements also make clear he implemented the ban to coerce more favorable coverage from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and to deter other journalists and news organizations from newsgathering and reporting that the President might view as negative. And his administration has continued to retaliate against Plaintiffs even after the temporary restraining order, only underscoring that Defendants’ motive is to punish and chill journalism they dislike.”

Even as access to the White House grounds has been reinstated, the White House has continued to restrict CNN from coverage of TV pool assignments, including travel with Trump on Air Force One.

The outlets’ lawyers, led by Theodore Boutrous Jr., also noted that Trump and other White House officials “overlooked that the First Amendment protects reporting on matters affecting national security.”

Kelly has set a hearing for Thursday on the news outlets’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

In granting a TRO, Kelly concluded that the White House failed to provide due process to the news outlets.

The DOJ has pointed to letters sent to the outlets as evidence that they were given due process. But those letters were sent on Sept. 22, four days after Trump’s ban was started.

The judge also has noted that some of the objectionable stories cited by the DOJ do not have to do with national security. Kelly wrote in his order that “even the justifications provided to Plaintiffs after this case was filed are ambiguous about the true purpose of the revocations: while Defendants’ letters to Plaintiffs mention national security concerns, they purport to identify reporting that ‘threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods’ leaving open the possibility that all the stories fall into the later bucket, rather than the former.”

The Justice Department argued that Donald Trump can legally ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House because he determined that they didn’t meet the “minimum requirements of professionalism.”

Last month, a federal judge granted the three outlets a temporary restraining order that forced the White House to reinstate dozens of their reporters’ hard passes. The outlets are now asking the judge to extend that 14-day order for a longer term via a preliminary injunction, claiming that Trump’s ban is a violation of their First and Fifth amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, has said that he is bound by the precedent set in In a 1977 D.C. Circuit opinion, Sherrill vs. Knight, in which the judges ruled that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.”

In a court filing on Friday, the DOJ claimed that the Sherrill case still would allow for the president to restrict the three outlets from accessing the White House grounds because the White House has a “compelling interest.”

The DOJ lawyers claimed that the Sherrill decision does not “prevent the President from concluding that bona fide journalists would identify sources instead of relying on anonymous sources, commit to factual accuracy, and provide the White House an opportunity to comment, rather than ‘perform their duties in a way that … interfere[s] with the White House’s daily operations.’ …At a bare minimum, it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information.”

The news outlets’ legal team has rejected that assertion, writing in a filing earlier this week that Trump’s “statements also make clear he implemented the ban to coerce more favorable coverage from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and to deter other journalists and news organizations from newsgathering and reporting that the President might view as negative. And his administration has continued to retaliate against Plaintiffs even after the temporary restraining order, only underscoring that Defendants’ motive is to punish and chill journalism they dislike.”

Even as access to the White House grounds has been reinstated, the White House has continued to restrict CNN from coverage of TV pool assignments, including travel with Trump on Air Force One.

The outlets’ lawyers, led by Theodore Boutrous Jr., also noted that Trump and other White House officials “overlooked that the First Amendment protects reporting on matters affecting national security.”

Kelly has set a hearing for Thursday on the news outlets’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

In granting a TRO, Kelly concluded that the White House failed to provide due process to the news outlets.

The DOJ has pointed to letters sent to the outlets as evidence that they were given due process. But those letters were sent on Sept. 22, four days after Trump’s ban was started.

The judge also has noted that some of the objectionable stories cited by the DOJ do not have to do with national security. Kelly wrote in his order that “even the justifications provided to Plaintiffs after this case was filed are ambiguous about the true purpose of the revocations: while Defendants’ letters to Plaintiffs mention national security concerns, they purport to identify reporting that ‘threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods’ leaving open the possibility that all the stories fall into the later bucket, rather than the former.”

The Justice Department argued that Donald Trump can legally ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House because he determined that they didn’t meet the “minimum requirements of professionalism.”

Last month, a federal judge granted the three outlets a temporary restraining order that forced the White House to reinstate dozens of their reporters’ hard passes. The outlets are now asking the judge to extend that 14-day order for a longer term via a preliminary injunction, claiming that Trump’s ban is a violation of their First and Fifth amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, has said that he is bound by the precedent set in In a 1977 D.C. Circuit opinion, Sherrill vs. Knight, in which the judges ruled that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.”

In a court filing on Friday, the DOJ claimed that the Sherrill case still would allow for the president to restrict the three outlets from accessing the White House grounds because the White House has a “compelling interest.”

The DOJ lawyers claimed that the Sherrill decision does not “prevent the President from concluding that bona fide journalists would identify sources instead of relying on anonymous sources, commit to factual accuracy, and provide the White House an opportunity to comment, rather than ‘perform their duties in a way that … interfere[s] with the White House’s daily operations.’ …At a bare minimum, it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information.”

The news outlets’ legal team has rejected that assertion, writing in a filing earlier this week that Trump’s “statements also make clear he implemented the ban to coerce more favorable coverage from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and to deter other journalists and news organizations from newsgathering and reporting that the President might view as negative. And his administration has continued to retaliate against Plaintiffs even after the temporary restraining order, only underscoring that Defendants’ motive is to punish and chill journalism they dislike.”

Even as access to the White House grounds has been reinstated, the White House has continued to restrict CNN from coverage of TV pool assignments, including travel with Trump on Air Force One.

The outlets’ lawyers, led by Theodore Boutrous Jr., also noted that Trump and other White House officials “overlooked that the First Amendment protects reporting on matters affecting national security.”

Kelly has set a hearing for Thursday on the news outlets’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

In granting a TRO, Kelly concluded that the White House failed to provide due process to the news outlets.

The DOJ has pointed to letters sent to the outlets as evidence that they were given due process. But those letters were sent on Sept. 22, four days after Trump’s ban was started.

The judge also has noted that some of the objectionable stories cited by the DOJ do not have to do with national security. Kelly wrote in his order that “even the justifications provided to Plaintiffs after this case was filed are ambiguous about the true purpose of the revocations: while Defendants’ letters to Plaintiffs mention national security concerns, they purport to identify reporting that ‘threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods’ leaving open the possibility that all the stories fall into the later bucket, rather than the former.”

The Justice Department argued that Donald Trump can legally ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House because he determined that they didn’t meet the “minimum requirements of professionalism.”

Last month, a federal judge granted the three outlets a temporary restraining order that forced the White House to reinstate dozens of their reporters’ hard passes. The outlets are now asking the judge to extend that 14-day order for a longer term via a preliminary injunction, claiming that Trump’s ban is a violation of their First and Fifth amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, has said that he is bound by the precedent set in In a 1977 D.C. Circuit opinion, Sherrill vs. Knight, in which the judges ruled that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.”

In a court filing on Friday, the DOJ claimed that the Sherrill case still would allow for the president to restrict the three outlets from accessing the White House grounds because the White House has a “compelling interest.”

The DOJ lawyers claimed that the Sherrill decision does not “prevent the President from concluding that bona fide journalists would identify sources instead of relying on anonymous sources, commit to factual accuracy, and provide the White House an opportunity to comment, rather than ‘perform their duties in a way that … interfere[s] with the White House’s daily operations.’ …At a bare minimum, it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information.”

The news outlets’ legal team has rejected that assertion, writing in a filing earlier this week that Trump’s “statements also make clear he implemented the ban to coerce more favorable coverage from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and to deter other journalists and news organizations from newsgathering and reporting that the President might view as negative. And his administration has continued to retaliate against Plaintiffs even after the temporary restraining order, only underscoring that Defendants’ motive is to punish and chill journalism they dislike.”

Even as access to the White House grounds has been reinstated, the White House has continued to restrict CNN from coverage of TV pool assignments, including travel with Trump on Air Force One.

The outlets’ lawyers, led by Theodore Boutrous Jr., also noted that Trump and other White House officials “overlooked that the First Amendment protects reporting on matters affecting national security.”

Kelly has set a hearing for Thursday on the news outlets’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

In granting a TRO, Kelly concluded that the White House failed to provide due process to the news outlets.

The DOJ has pointed to letters sent to the outlets as evidence that they were given due process. But those letters were sent on Sept. 22, four days after Trump’s ban was started.

The judge also has noted that some of the objectionable stories cited by the DOJ do not have to do with national security. Kelly wrote in his order that “even the justifications provided to Plaintiffs after this case was filed are ambiguous about the true purpose of the revocations: while Defendants’ letters to Plaintiffs mention national security concerns, they purport to identify reporting that ‘threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods’ leaving open the possibility that all the stories fall into the later bucket, rather than the former.”

The Kennedy Center Honors will move to a new location for the first time in its history, as it will be held at Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C.

The ceremony will take place at the new venue on December 7, a center spokesperson said. The honorees have not been announced, and a broadcast partner will be announced at a later date. The event’s contract with CBS, which broadcast the event since its origin in 1978, expired last year.

The Kennedy Center’s main building, where the honors have been held, is currently closed amid an assessment for safety risks, officials with the complex have told a federal judge.

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), an ex officio member of the board, sued the center earlier this year over its plans to close the complex for two years for a large-scale renovation. She also challenged the board’s decision to add Donald Trump‘s name to the center.

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction ruling that only Congress could add another name to the center, and ordering that the president’s name be taken down from its façade and other materials. He later rejected the board’s plans to add Trump’s name to the façade in other ways. The judge also prohibited the center from closing for two years unless the board more fully weighed its impact. The center has said that the recent closure is temporary, with safety risks being assessed on a week-to-week basis following the recent collapse of part of the ceiling.

The December 7 date is the traditional weekend for the ceremonies. Trump hosted the event last year, with honorees including Sylvester Stallone and George Strait. At the time, its then-president, Ric Grenell, said the ceremony had raised $23 million.

But the finances of the center have deteriorated. Its attorneys from the Justice Department warned last month that it was facing “certain financial collapse within weeks” and that adding Trump’s name to the complex may be the only way to get him to “lead the financial rescue of the center.” The attorneys later told an appeals court that Trump had raised $17 million “to keep it afloat.”

The attorneys wrote that “the funds are fast being expended, and without the Trump Administration, the accounts will dry up and Center will continue its deterioration into an unsafe structure that will eventually collapse, with a determination to follow on how to proceed and what to do with the site.”

Since Trump took over the center and ousted board members appointed by his predecessors, the center has seen a drop in ticket sales, while artists have canceled performances. The Washington Post and CNN have recently done deep dives on the dire state of Kennedy Center finances. Major shows ended in July, which had been the original time frame for when Trump and the center planned for the long-term closure for renovations.

Leading in polls in the Los Angeles mayor’s race, Nithya Raman went on a charm offensive Thursday with the film and TV industry, and Paramount‘s CEO David Ellison in particular.

“To David Ellison, to his co-CEO, I don’t just want those dollars that you’ve committed to productions to be spent in America — I want them to be spent in Los Angeles,” the two-term councilmember said today at the Bloomberg Screentime conference, which is taking place in her Hollywood district. Raman said that though she was opposed to $111 billion merger of Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery, now that the deal has been approved she has no interest in “relitigating this into eternity.”

As has been the case many times in the past, the home of Hollywood has some unlikely bedfellows when it comes to the bottom line. It is unknown whether Raman has directly reached out to Paramount brass since U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín signed off Tuesday on the antitrust settlement between the Ellison-run company and a dozen state attorneys general. Paramount reps did not respond to Deadline’s request for comment on any communication between the councilmember and the CEO.

In full campaign mode, Raman emphasized during today’s panel interview that she will be a “relentless advocate” for uncapping the state’s current $750 million a year film and TV tax incentive program as a further move to get production back to California and L.A. With a room full of execs before her, the spouse of TV comedy scribe Vali Chandrasekaran also reiterated she would “ensure that we had a film office in the mayor’s office that was liaising with other jurisdictions, that was making it as simple to shoot here as possible, as low cost to shoot here as possible, and that work would be established almost immediately.”

To that, with production significantly on the decline over the past six years and more than 50,000 jobs lost, Raman followed the headlines as Ellison and his newly minted co-CEO Ynon Kreiz prepare to meld the two iconic Hollywood companies.

“If I get to be mayor, I want to work with you and ensure and fight as hard as I possibly can to make sure that every single one of those shoots are happening here in Los Angeles,” the candidate said, addressing Ellison and Kreiz directly in absentia. “And I will do everything in my power to make sure that happens.”

Although Raman leads incumbent Mayor Karen Bass by double digits in many polls, the fact is one-third of voters in the City of Angels remain undecided just more than a month before the election. To that, the candidate has to win over a portion of those who voted for ex-The Hills regular Spencer Pratt in the three-way primary earlier this year — and she had a pitch.

“To every voter who voted for Spencer Pratt in the primary who is disappointed that he’s not in this general election, I want to speak directly to you,” Raman said of the Donald Trump ally. “I want to speak directly to them, and to say that I share your frustration with City Hall, and I will work with every molecule of my being to ensure that this city is working for you.”

Among his various post-primary endeavors, former Palisades resident Pratt has been instrumental, by all bipartisan accounts, in the crafting of federal film and TV tax incentive legislation — a bill Raman has said she also supports.

Leaning into her own outsider status, even with years on the L.A. City Council, Raman added, again addressing Pratt voters: “The frustrations that Angelinos have with the direction of our city is warranted. We have, under this mayor’s leadership, we have moved in the wrong direction and and away from actually delivering the kinds of services that we were able to deliver just a few years ago because of fiscal mismanagement under her leadership.”

“So, to those Pratt voters, I just want to say to you, I will do better for you,” she said.

U.S. job growth slowed in September to 29,000, while unemployment ticked up to 4.2%.

Overall, the employment situation was largely unchanged during the month, amid continued concerns over rising prices.

Employment in movies and music dipped slightly, shedding about 200 jobs to 328,500. Employment among broadcasting and content providers fell by 3,000, to 328,100. Industry lobbyists have pointed to job losses in movie and TV production as they press for passage of a 20% federal incentive, with hopes that Congress will take up a bill during the lame duck session.

The figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are the final monthly release before the midterm elections on Nov. 3.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised previous months’ figures, as is typical. The figures for July were changed downward by 31,000, showing a loss of 10,000 jobs. August’s job numbers, which were surprisingly robust, were revised down by 29,000 jobs, to 133,000.

The biggest gains were in health care, adding 17,000 jobs, while there was a slight growth in construction and manufacturing jobs.

The average hourly earnings rose by 5 cents, or 0.1%, to $37.81. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 3%.

Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal, called the report “mediocre.” She wrote on X, “The biggest sore spot = wage growth of 3% in past year. That’s a new 5-year low and it’s wiped out entirely by ~3.4% inflation.”