A federal judge has extended access to the White House for several US media organizations that President Donald Trump had sought to ban, ruling that the president likely broke the law.

US District Judge Timothy Kelly stated that Trump's administration likely violated the First Amendment by banning journalists from CNN, MS Now, and Politico from attending White House briefings. The decision, issued late Tuesday, builds upon an emergency order from September 24 that temporarily reinstated access for these outlets.

Kelly's ruling indicated that Trump likely discriminated against the news organizations based on their viewpoints. He wrote that the "announcement of the ban and later remarks explaining the reason for it make this a straightforward conclusion: President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him."

The implications of the ruling are significant, as it challenges the president's authority to restrict access to the White House based on critical reporting. The order remains in effect until Judge Kelly makes a final determination or an appeals court intervenes.

Trump had initially cited that these organizations "shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States" when announcing the ban. Following this, the Department of Justice claimed that the reporters' White House passes were revoked on national security grounds.

However, Judge Kelly rejected the national security justification. He wrote, "First, there is no evidence in the record that President Trump made the decision to revoke Plaintiffs’ hard passes on national security grounds from the get-go, nor at any time has he directly stated that national security was the reason for his decision."

This legal battle is part of a broader pattern of Trump's criticism of legacy US media. He has a history of rhetorical attacks on individual reporters and has initiated numerous lawsuits against media companies, often seeking to restrict access to certain organizations.

Lawyers for the banned organizations argued during an October 8 hearing that Trump was attempting to "coerce better coverage." Groups like the Freedom of the Press Foundation have publicly supported the court's decision, though they acknowledge the fight is ongoing.