​A federal judge on Thursday said US President Donald Trump must lift his ban on journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico accessing the White House.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the news organizations contesting the ban, issued on September 18.

In his order, District Judge Tim Kelly said the ban was likely unconstitutional.

Kelly said his order must remain in place for 14 days.

"This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law," Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the outlets, said in a statement emailed to the AP news agency. "We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action."

What did the judge say about the ban?

Kelly rejected the government's claim that national security concerns promoted the ban.

"The record lacks factual support for defendants’ contention that the revocation of plaintiffs' hard passes will ​in fact protect national security or that national security will be endangered if the court orders their passes reinstated while this litigation ​proceeds," he said.

He pointed out that Trump himself had initially cited only an "alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity" in reporting by the outlets as the reason for the ban.

At a Wednesday hearing, Kelly said two previous rulings from the US Court of Appeals for the ⁠District of ​Columbia Circuit had established that White House press passes can be revoked only after due process. 

He said the banned news outlets did not appear to have been given a proper chance to contest the ban.

Kelly, who was nominated by Trump in 2017, ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar case in 2018.

The ban led other media outlets, including DW, to take action in solidarity by suspending pooled coverage of Trump events.

Department of Justice support for ban

On Tuesday, the Justice Department had argued in a filing that access ⁠to the White House was a privilege, not ​an entitlement, and that the president had the authority to deny access news organizations.

The outlets, in turn, argued they were singled out because of the content of their coverage and called the ban a "blatant violation" of the First Amendment, which prevents government infringement on freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the United States.

If you rely on our team for trusted reporting, please take a moment to select us as your Preferred Source on Google so you'll always see our verified news first.

Edited by: Sean Sinico