A federal judge issued an order late Tuesday blocking the Trump administration from banning CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House complex while the organizations’ lawsuit over access proceeds. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly of Washington, D.C., issued the preliminary injunction in the wake of a hearing Thursday at which the administration contended it imposed the ban in part because of national security concerns; media organizations said it was because of “viewpoint discrimination.”

Kelly sided with the news outlets, noting that Trump used national security as a reason for the ban after their press passes had already been revoked and ruling that it also likely violated reporters’ freedom of speech and due process rights. “There is practically nothing national security-related in the record connected to the President’s decision to revoke Plaintiffs’ hard passes to which the Court can defer,” Kelly wrote in his 26-page opinion.

His order will give the outlets access to the White House until the underlying lawsuit challenging the ban is resolved. But it doesn’t require the administration to allow reporters from the outlets access to the Oval Office or Air Force One — locations where the administration has blocked reporters from CNN and Politico in recent weeks. Trump vowed to appeal on Truth Social before the ruling was handed down. The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment following the ruling.

Kelly had issued a temporary restraining order lifting the ban while he weighed whether to issue an injunction. Trump announced the bans of CNN, MS NOW and Politico on social media on Sept. 18, saying they were a “result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!”“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow,” he wrote on Truth Social.

In court filings, the three news organizations said the ban affected 78 journalists who had “hard passes,” meaning they had been previously screened and credentialed to work at the White House. The outlets filed a lawsuit alleging Trump’s action violated their due process rights and First Amendment protections for newsgathering and speech.

“This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles,” the suit said.

The White House and Trump then began arguing that the ban was intended to address national security concerns, with Trump saying in another post that the outlets’ reporting was “a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!”

The judge was unmoved by that argument. Kelly said it was clear from Trump’s announcement of the ban and from subsequent remarks that his motivation was content. “President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him,” Kelly wrote, finding this decision violated the journalists’ First and Fifth amendment rights.

He noted, however, that his decision doesn’t concede that Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness are unfounded or that the government is “powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.”Kelly cited Trump’s recent remarks to Time magazine that he didn’t like “bad story after bad story” coming from CNN, Politico and MS NOW journalists.

It was, Ted Boutrous, the news outlets’ attorney, had argued ahead of the decision, “a confession of what amounts to viewpoint discrimination.”“President Trump, I’ll give him credit,” Boutrous said. “He’s not hiding it.”

In his previous decision, Kelly also found that the administration had denied the outlets due process under settled law from several cases that have made their way to the D.C. federal appeals court.

The White House argued that the appeals court decisions were wrong. “Maybe—but this Court is bound by D.C. Circuit precedent, full stop,” Kelly wrote. At a hearing on the injunction Thursday, the Justice Department lawyer representing the White House, Michael Velchik, asked Kelly to lift his restraining order, calling the White House a “sacred place” that shouldn’t have to give people access just because they “identify as a reporter.”“Access to the White House is a privilege — not a right,” Velchik said.

Boutrous argued that the administration was engaging in impermissible and unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination” because the ban was based on Trump’s dislike of the outlets’ reporting and because he has said he hoped the ban would force journalists to “straighten themselves out.”In court filings, Boutrous urged Kelly to ignore the national security arguments, saying they were manufactured and not what the case is really about. Boutrous argued that “the President himself has continued telling anyone who will listen precisely what this ban is really about, most recently complaining at length in an interview with Time magazine that he banned Plaintiffs because he feels that he should not ‘be forced to bear’ what he considers ‘constantly bad stories,’ as he ‘won the election’ and has ‘done great things.’”

After Tuesday night’s ruling, Boutrous said he and his clients were grateful to the court for securing their access anew. “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,” he said in a statement. “The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The Court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban.’”

Separately, the Justice Department said last week that it was investigating five major TV networks, including CNN and NBC, for potentially violating federal antitrust laws after the networks temporarily declined to provide pool coverage of Trump as a result of the ban against the three news outlets. The pool is a rotating group of networks that share the duties of recording a president’s activities during public appearances and travel. The on-duty network then distributes information and media, such as video and audio, to other outlets for their use.