周二晚间，一位联邦法官无限期恢复了三家全国性新闻机构进入白宫的权限。此前，唐纳德·特朗普总统曾下令禁止这些媒体进入白宫，此次裁决堪称新闻自由的一次胜利。
A federal judge on Tuesday night indefinitely restored access to the White House for three national news organizations that were banned by President Donald Trump in a victory for freedom of the press.
美国地方法官蒂莫西·凯利在裁决中暂时站在了美国全国广播公司新闻频道、CNN以及《政治报》这一边，裁定特朗普政府不得再禁止这些新闻机构进入白宫。凯利认定，特朗普的禁令很可能违反了美国宪法第五修正案所规定的正当程序条款以及第一修正案。
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly sided with MS NOW, CNN and Politico for now in ruling that the news organizations cannot be denied access to the White House by the Trump administration. Kelly found Trump’s ban likely violated both the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the First Amendment.
这是凯利首次就第一修正案相关问题作出裁决，他认定特朗普的禁令既属于报复性举措，也构成了基于立场观点的歧视行为。
This is the first time Kelly has addressed the First Amendment issues, finding Trump’s ban was both retaliatory and viewpoint discrimination.
“记录显示，正是特朗普总统作出了相关决定，”凯利在裁决书中写道。“他宣布禁令时的言论以及随后解释禁令理由的发言都清楚地表明：特朗普总统极有可能因为认为这些媒体的报道普遍失实且对他抱有偏见，才禁止它们进入白宫。”凯利还驳回了特朗普政府以国家安全为由实施的禁令。“首先，现有记录中没有任何证据表明特朗普总统最初就是出于国家安全考量才决定撤销这些媒体的出入许可；他也从未直接声称国家安全是其作出该决定的原因，”他写道。
“The record is clear that President Trump made the decision at issue,” Kelly wrote. “And his 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.”Kelly also rejected the Trump administration’s national security argument for the ban. “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,” he wrote.
不过，凯利在裁决中附带了一项说明：“尽管如此，任何人都不应将本法院的裁决理解为特朗普总统对媒体报道的准确性与公正性所表达的担忧毫无根据，也不应认为当机密信息遭到非法泄露时，政府在旨在保护国家安全的前提下便无权采取相应措施。”代表这三家新闻机构的律师泰德·布特鲁斯对这一裁决表示赞赏。
However, Kelly included one caveat in his ruling: “Still, no one should interpret the Court’s decision to suggest that President Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness in the media’s reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.”Ted Boutrous, a lawyer representing the three news outlets, applauded the ruling.
“我们非常感激法院作出了有利于我们的客户——CNN、MS NOW和POLITICO的裁决，确保了这些新闻机构及其记者能够进入白宫，”他在一份声明中写道。
“We are grateful that the Court ruled in favor of our clients CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO and secured access to the White House for these news media organizations and their journalists,” he wrote in a statement.
“总统颁布‘禁止自由媒体进入’的命令，公然且明确地违反了正当程序原则以及《第一修正案》，”布特鲁斯继续说道。“此后，总统多次在公开场合坦率且明确地承认：他禁止我们的客户进入白宫，是为了惩罚那些报道令他不悦的新闻，并试图迫使记者们按照他希望的方式进行报道。”周三，白宫宣布将对凯利的裁决提出上诉。
“When the President issued his ‘ban on the free press,’ he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment,” Boutrous continued. “Since then, the President has repeatedly, candidly, and consistently admitted in public that he banned our clients from the White House to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to try to force journalists to cover him in ways he prefers.”The White House on Wednesday announced it is appealing Kelly’s ruling.
“那些传播假新闻的媒体根本没资格进入总统办公室。它们散布的谎言不仅误导美国民众，更会破坏我们民主制度的根基，”一位白宫发言人告诉MS NOW，“这些媒体完全可以在白宫外进行报道。我们决心对这一不合理的裁决提出上诉。”美国司法部则拒绝对此裁决发表评论。
“The Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office. The lies they smear are a disservice to the American public and tear at the very fabric of our Democracy,” a White House spokesperson told MS NOW, adding, “They’re completely capable of reporting from directly outside. We intend to appeal this misguided decision.”The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling.
此次裁决是在凯利于周四听取了关于该禁令合法性的辩论后作出的。庭审期间，凯利明确表示自己须遵循司法先例——即白宫无权在未履行正当程序的情况下随意撤销媒体的采访资格。
The ruling comes after Kelly heard arguments Thursday over the ban’s lawfulness. During the hearing, Kelly indicated he was bound by judicial precedent, which has held the White House cannot arbitrarily revoke media credentials without due process.
这是凯利第二次驳回特朗普的禁令。今年9月，他曾批准一项紧急申请，暂时恢复上述三家新闻机构进入白宫的资格，为期两周。当时该裁决仅基于正当程序原则作出。后来，在考虑是否给予长期救济措施之际，他又将CNN、MS NOW和POLITICO的采访资格延长了两个工作日。
This is the second time Kelly has blocked Trump’s ban. In September, he granted an emergency request to restore White House access for the news organizations for two weeks. That ruling was based solely on due process grounds. He later extended that ruling, which restored credentials for MS NOW, CNN and Politico, for another two business days while he mulled longer-term relief.
这三家被禁止进入白宫的新闻机构此前曾请求凯利将裁决永久生效，理由是若没有法院的干预，特朗普政府定会再度禁止其记者进入。
The three banned news organizations had asked Kelly to extend his ruling indefinitely, arguing that absent his intervention, the Trump administration would again block the journalists’ access.
“白宫的言行清楚地表明，只要有机会，它就会立即重新实施对CNN、MS NOW和POLITICO的全面禁令，”这些新闻机构的律师在听证会前写道。“这一禁令是对《第一修正案》所保障的基本言论自由的非法侵犯；若不加以制止，必将给原告及公众造成无法挽回的损害。”
“The White House’s words and actions leave little doubt that it will immediately reinstate a complete ban of CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO if allowed the opportunity,” lawyers for the news organizations wrote ahead of the hearing. “Because the ban is an unlawful assault on the most fundamental First Amendment freedoms and will inflict irreparable harm on Plaintiffs and the public if not restrained.”
在周四的听证会上，布特鲁斯指出特朗普的禁令违反了《第一修正案》。他称该禁令是“典型的报复行为”，并认为特朗普的主要动机就是“这些媒体没有说我的好话”。
During Thursday’s hearing, Boutrous argued that Trump’s ban violated the First Amendment. He called the ban “textbook retaliation” and said Trump’s overarching complaint is “you’re not saying nice things about me.”
“他不喜欢这些报道，”布特鲁斯说道，“他不想让这些记者进入白宫报道新闻。”美国政府则辩称，实施禁令的部分原因在于国家安全考量。
“He doesn’t like the reporting,” Boutrous said. “He doesn’t want these reporters in the White House complex reporting the news.”The government has argued that the ban is, in part, based on national security concerns.
凯利对这一说法提出了质疑，指出政府在法庭上的主张与总统的公开言论存在矛盾。
Kelly pushed back on that argument, pointing to a disconnect between the government’s argument in the courtroom and the president’s public statements.
“决策者曾声称采取此举措是出于X和Y的原因，可如今政府却改口称是出于Z的原因，”凯利说道，“这种辩解很难站得住脚。”尽管关于能否进入白宫的新闻自由诉讼仍在进行，特朗普政府仍试图通过其他手段限制受禁令影响的新闻机构的采访权限。白宫时常阻止CNN与POLITICO执行既定的联合采访任务——这些任务原本允许媒体随时报道总统动态。自禁令生效以来，MS NOW则从未被安排参与此类联合采访。
“The decision-maker has said, I’m taking this action because of X and Y and now the government is actually saying, no, it’s actually because of Z,” Kelly said. “That’s an uphill climb.”While the legal battle over access to the White House grounds continues, the Trump administration has sought other ways to restrict access for the news organizations affected by the ban. The White House has erratically blocked both CNN and Politico from fulfilling their scheduled pool duties, which allow coverage of the president at all times. MS NOW has not been scheduled for pool duty since the ban has gone into effect.
这些受影响的媒体机构认为，特朗普的禁令属于报复性举措，且因针对其不喜欢的报道内容而构成了基于立场的歧视，因此违反了《第一修正案》。他们还主张，白宫在实施禁令前未提供明确的规则说明与充分的通知，此举亦违背了《第五修正案》所规定的正当程序原则。
The affected news outlets allege that Trump’s ban violates the First Amendment because it is retaliatory and viewpoint discrimination for coverage the president doesn’t like. They also argue that it violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment because the White House did not provide adequate notice with clear standards before implementing the ban.
“特朗普的言论也清楚地表明，他实施禁令的目的就是迫使CNN、MS NOW和Politico提供对其更为有利的报道，同时阻止其他记者及新闻机构进行可能被总统视为负面的新闻报道，”这些新闻机构的律师在听证会前写道。“即便在临时禁令颁布之后，特朗普政府仍继续对原告实施报复，这进一步证明被告的动机就是惩罚并压制他们不喜欢的新闻报道。”
“[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,” lawyers for the news organizations wrote ahead of the hearing. “And his administration has continued to retaliate against Plaintiffs even after the temporary restraining order, only underscoring Defendants’ motive is to punish and chill journalism they dislike.”
特朗普政府则反驳了这些说法，声称白宫已通过向相关新闻机构发送信函的方式履行了正当程序，信中说明实施禁令是出于对其报道内容可能引发的安全隐患的考量。
The Trump administration pushed back on those arguments, alleging that the White House gave the journalists due process when it sent letters to the news organizations explaining that the ban was motivated by national security concerns based on their reporting.
“我们确实提供了相应程序，但他们选择不参与，”周四，唯一代表政府的律师迈克尔·韦尔奇克这样辩称。
“We did provide a process and they chose not to participate,” Michael Velchik, the sole lawyer representing the government, argued on Thursday.
这些信函是在白宫撤销多名来自MS NOW、CNN和Politico记者的采访资格三天后发出的，此时距离这些新闻机构提起诉讼仅过去一天。
Those letters were sent three days after the White House revoked press credentials from multiple journalists from MS NOW, CNN and Politico, and one day after the news organizations filed the lawsuit.
上个月，凯利基于正当程序原则暂时叫停了该禁令。他认定特朗普政府在实施禁令前并未给予新闻机构充分的正当程序保障。
Last month, Kelly blocked the ban temporarily, ruling solely on due process grounds. He found that the Trump administration had not given news organizations adequate due process before enacting the ban.
凯利基于正当程序原则作出的裁决其实在意料之中，因为这符合既有判例——他在听证会上也特意提及了这一点。巡回法院的判例明确规定：白宫不得任意剥夺记者的采访资格，因为记者进入白宫采访的权利受美国宪法第一修正案保护，未经正当程序不得被剥夺。
Kelly’s ruling on due process grounds was unsurprising because it was bound by precedent, which he himself had noted during the hearing. Circuit court precedent says the White House may not arbitrarily deny a journalist a press credential, because press access to the White House is protected by the First Amendment and may not be revoked without due process.
尽管凯利最初作出了相关裁决，但特朗普政府仍持续限制可参与媒体采访的人员范围，因此对特朗普相关活动的报道依然受到影响。
Coverage of Trump’s activities has been affected despite Kelly’s initial ruling because the administration continues to restrict who can participate in the media pool.
白宫记者团是根据白宫与新闻机构之间的一项长期协议成立的，根据该协议，一小群记者同意代表整个新闻界报道总统——通常随同总统出行。在白宫禁止 CNN 或《政客》杂志参与记者团的日子里，其他新闻机构出于对被禁媒体的声援，拒绝替补填补空缺。
The White House press pool was formed as part of a long-standing agreement between the White House and news organizations in which a small group of journalists agrees to cover the president — often traveling with him — on behalf of the entire press corps. On days the White House has barred CNN or Politico from serving in the pool, other news outlets have declined to fill in for them in solidarity with the banned outlets.
如果没有记者团——特别是 CNN 的摄像机——特朗普最近的几场活动未能按惯例进行报道。MS NOW、CNN 和《政客》杂志的律师辩称，对记者团的限制不仅影响相关媒体机构，也影响公众对总统活动的了解。
Without the pool — particularly CNN’s cameras — several of Trump’s recent events have not been covered in the usual way. Lawyers for MS NOW, CNN and Politico argue that restrictions on the pool not only affect the media organization in question but have an impact on coverage of the president for the public.
记者团受限问题已出现在近期的法庭文件中，但目前并未直接提交给凯利法官审理。目前的法律诉讼主要集中在恢复特朗普禁令前的白宫准入权。起诉状并未直接涉及记者团准入，但新闻机构的律师指出，记者需要白宫采访证才能参与记者团。
The issue of pool restrictions has arisen in recent court filings, but it is not directly before Kelly at this point. The current legal battle is focused primarily on access to the White House itself as it existed before Trump’s ban. The lawsuit does not directly address pool access, but lawyers for the news organizations have made the point that journalists need White House credentials to participate in the pool.
联邦法官无限期推翻白宫对全国性新闻机构的禁令，新闻界 MS NOW 取得胜利
The post Federal judge indefinitely reverses White House ban on national news organizations in victory for press MS NOW