周四，一名联邦法官似乎有可能无限期延长法院下令允许三家曾被唐纳德·特朗普总统禁止进入的全国性新闻媒体重返白宫。不过，他将对此事的最终裁决推迟至最晚周二作出。
A federal judge on Thursday appeared likely to indefinitely extend court-ordered access to the White House for three national news organizations that were banned by President Donald Trump. But he put off a ruling on the matter until Tuesday at the latest.
美国地区法官蒂莫西·凯利表示，他受司法先例的约束，而该先例认定白宫不得在没有正当程序的情况下随意撤销新闻机构的准入资格。
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly indicated he was bound by judicial precedent, which has held the White House cannot arbitrarily revoke credentials without due process.
“就正当程序而言，这或许是你们所有人面临的最大障碍，”凯利在听证会上说道。
“As far as due process goes, it’s probably the biggest hurdle you all have,” Kelly said during the hearing.
9月24日，凯利批准了一项紧急请求，允许这三家新闻媒体重返白宫两周。这项裁决恢复了MS NOW、CNN和Politico的准入资格，原定于周四到期。但凯利将这一准入权限延长至周二，以便在此期间考虑是否以更长久的方式恢复其访问权。
Kelly on Sept. 24 granted an emergency request to return White House access for the news organizations for two weeks. That ruling, which restored credentials for MS NOW, CNN and Politico, was set to expire on Thursday. But Kelly extended the access through Tuesday while he mulls whether to restore access on a longer-term basis.
“就正当程序而言，这或许是你们所有人面临的最大障碍。”凯利表示，他打算在周二前对一项长期禁令请求作出裁决，该禁令将在诉讼持续期间继续有效。
“As far as due process goes, it’s probably the biggest hurdle you all have.”Kelly indicated he intends to rule by Tuesday on the request for a longer-term block that would remain in effect while the litigation continues.
这三家被禁的新闻媒体请求凯利无限期延长其裁决，并主张称，若没有他的干预，特朗普政府将再次阻止这些记者进入白宫。
The three banned news organizations asked Kelly to extend his ruling indefinitely, arguing that absent his intervention, the Trump administration would again block the journalists’ access.
“如果白宫有机会，毫无疑问会立即全面禁止CNN、MS NOW和POLITICO的进入，”这些新闻机构的律师在听证会前写道。“因为这项禁令是对第一修正案最核心自由的非法攻击，如果不加以制止，将对原告和公众造成不可挽回的损害。”
“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.”
在听证会上，代表这些新闻机构的律师小泰德·布特鲁斯（Ted Boutrous, Jr.）主张，特朗普的禁令违反了第一修正案。他将该禁令称为“教科书式的报复”，并声称特朗普的核心抱怨不过是“你们没有说我的好话”。
During the hearing, Ted Boutrous, Jr., a lawyer representing the news organizations, argued Trump’s ban violates the First Amendment. He called the ban “textbook retaliation” and claimed 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，“他不想让这些记者进入白宫建筑群进行新闻采访。”而政府方面则辩称，这项禁令部分基于国家安全方面的担忧。
“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 the ban is, in part, based on national security concerns.
凯利（Kelly）反驳了这一论点，指出政府在法庭上的说法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.
“决策者曾表示，他采取这一行动是因为X和Y，但如今政府却声称，其实是因为Z，”凯利说，“这显然难以自圆其说。”尽管围绕白宫区域访问权的法律斗争仍在继续，特朗普政府也试图通过其他方式限制受禁令影响的新闻机构的进入。白宫曾反复无常地阻止《政治报》（Politico）履行其既定的联合采访任务。自禁令生效以来，MS NOW也未被安排过任何联合采访任务。
“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 Politico from fulfilling their scheduled pool duties. MS NOW has not been scheduled for pool duty since the ban has gone into effect.
受影响的新闻机构指控称，特朗普的禁令属于报复性和观点歧视行为，因其针对的是总统不喜欢的报道内容。他们还认为，这项禁令违反了第五修正案的正当程序条款，因为白宫在实施禁令前并未提供充分的通知和明确的标准。
The affected news outlets allege Trump’s ban violates the First Amendment because it is retaliatory and viewpoint discrimination for coverage the president doesn’t like. They also argue 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.
新闻机构的律师在听证会前写道：“（特朗普的）声明也清楚地表明，他实施这项禁令是为了迫使CNN、MS NOW和Politico给予更有利的报道，并阻止其他记者和新闻机构进行总统可能视为负面新闻的新闻采集和报道。而且，即便在临时限制令下达之后，他的政府仍继续对原告进行报复，这进一步证明被告的动机是惩罚并压制他们不喜欢的新闻业。”特朗普政府则反驳了这些论点，声称白宫在致信各新闻机构时，已遵循了正当程序，信中解释称该禁令是基于其报道所引发的国家安全担忧。
“[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.”The Trump administration pushed back on those arguments, alleging the White House gave the journalists due process when it sent letters to the news organizations explaining the ban was motivated by national security concerns based on their reporting.
“我们确实提供了相关程序，但他们选择没有参与，”唯一代表政府的律师迈克尔·韦尔奇克辩称。
“We did provide a process and they chose not to participate,” Michael Velchik, the sole lawyer representing the government argued.
这些信件是在白宫撤销MS NOW、CNN和Politico多名记者的媒体证件三天后，以及各新闻机构提起诉讼一天后寄出的。
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.
凯利不同意政府的说法，他仅基于正当程序的理由裁定撤销该禁令。他认为，特朗普政府在实施禁令之前，并未给予各新闻机构充分的正当程序。他还对禁令是否真正出于国家安全担忧表示怀疑。
Kelly disagreed with the government, ruling solely on due process grounds in revoking the ban. He found the Trump administration had not given the news organizations adequate due process before enacting the ban. He also expressed skepticism that the ban was actually motivated by national security concerns.
“在本案之前的记录中，没有任何迹象表明撤销原告的硬通行证是出于国家安全考虑，”凯利在原始裁决中写道。“显然，这并不是特朗普总统在宣布‘禁止’原告进入白宫时所说的——他当时强调的是原告报道的真实性缺失和负面性。”凯利基于正当程序的裁决并不令人惊讶，因为它受到了先例的约束。巡回法院的先例指出，白宫不能随意拒绝记者的新闻证件，因为对白宫的新闻访问受第一修正案保护，且不得在没有正当程序的情况下被撤销。
“Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns,” Kelly wrote in his original ruling. “Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ Plaintiffs from the White House– instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting.”Kelly’s ruling on due process grounds was unsurprising because it was bound by precedent. 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.
凯利尚未对第一修正案的主张作出裁决，但可能会在本阶段的诉讼中予以处理。
Kelly has not yet ruled on the First Amendment claims but will likely address them at this stage of the litigation.
尽管凯利最初的裁决已经作出，特朗普的活动报道仍受到影响，因为政府继续限制谁可以参与媒体池。
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.
白宫新闻池是白宫与新闻机构之间长期存在的协议，少数记者组成的团队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Politico参与新闻池的日子里，其他媒体机构也拒绝替代他们。
The White House press pool is a long-standing agreement between the White House and news organizations in which a small group of journalists agree 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.
没有新闻池——尤其是缺少CNN的摄像机——特朗普最近的多项活动未能像往常那样得到报道。MS NOW、CNN和Politico的律师认为，对新闻池的限制不仅影响相关媒体机构，也影响公众对总统的报道。
Without the pool — particularly CNN’s cameras — several of Trump’s recent events have not been covered in the way they usually are. Lawyers for MS NOW, CNN and Politico argue restrictions on the pool not only affect the media organization in question but impact coverage of the president for the public.
最近提交给法院的文件中出现了关于媒体池限制的问题，但这一问题目前并未直接提交给凯莉处理。当前的法律纠纷主要集中在特朗普禁令实施前白宫本身的访问权限上。该诉讼并未直接涉及媒体池的访问问题，但新闻机构的律师指出，记者需要白宫的通行证件才能参加媒体池活动。
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.
联邦法官计划很快对白宫媒体禁令作出裁决，并暂时延长记者的访问权限 MS NOW
The post Federal judge plans to rule soon on White House media ban, briefly extending access for journalists MS NOW