For most people a “hard pass” means no, thank you. But for US political journalists it’s pure gold: the media pass that requires a Secret Service background check then grants unescorted access to parts of the White House, and the press events where you can lob a question at the president himself.

So on Friday when reporters from CNN, MSNOW and Politico were denied entry to the White House, and had their hard passes seized, it was a body blow.

On Monday, as the rest of the media suspended some coverage of Donald Trump and his government in sympathy, the three media organisations headed for the courts to try to force officials to hand back their passes.

A District Court judge began to examine the case, but the president showed no sign of backing down, setting up a “Trump TV” live channel and indulging in one of his favourite pastimes: a war of words with the “Fake News”.

Here’s where things stand.

What happened?

Mid-afternoon Friday, DC time, President Trump officially banned CNN, MSNOW (formerly MSNBC) and Politico from the White House, explaining it was “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.”

The news organisations said they received no prior warning.

Trump threatened that “Other Fake News Media Outlets [are] to follow”.

An hour later in the Oval Office Trump explained what he referred to as “the ban on the free press”, saying “[t]here’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories”.

On its legality he said: “we’ll see. . . .[it] depends on the judge you get, to be honest with you.”

On Saturday morning, CNN reporter Betsy Klein tried to enter the White House and was told by the Secret Service that her pass had been deactivated. They confiscated the pass and barred her from entry. Reporters from the other organisations soon had similar experiences.

Why might the ban be illegal?

The three media companies have sued Donald Trump “in his official capacity as President of the United States”, as well as his communications assistant Sean Curran, the director of the Secret Service, and White house chief of Staff Susan Wiles.

The case has already begun at DC’s District Court, in front of judge Timothy Kelly (more on him later). They have asked for a temporary restraining order to restore their reporters’ access while the full case is argued, saying they are suffering irreparable harm as “they have already lost opportunities to perform their constitutionally protected newsgathering and reporting functions at the White House, impairing their ability to speak and publish as members of the press — and they lose more such opportunities every day that the ban remains in effect.”

In legal documents submitted to the court they argue “this ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment [freedom of the press] nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles”.

“President Trump has said in no uncertain terms that he would prefer only to be covered by news organisations and reporters who praise his administration. But the Constitution does not allow [that].”

Their legal argument rests on three grounds: that the ban did not follow “due process” such as allowing advance notice and an opportunity to be heard; that it violates a constitutional right to free speech because it is designed to prevent unfavourable coverage; that it also violates free speech by denying access to a “nonpublic forum” (the White House) based on unreasonable and discriminatory grounds.

They also argue that the ban ” inflicts an injury on all news media organisations — who now risk a  similar fate if they engage in reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable”.

“And the public at large suffers for however long the unconstitutional ban restricts access to current and complete information about their government.”

Judge Kelly ordered that the defendants file a response the next day, with a hearing set for Wednesday.

What does Trump say?

On Monday Trump claimed to have “expected” the lawsuit, and again attacked the media organisations, saying the Oval Office “should be treated with Decorum, Respect, and Dignity, not defiled by Third Rate Clowns, who purposefully distort, twist, and degrade with everything they write or publish.”

But he seemed to anticipate being ruled against in the District Court, saying “we’ll go for appeal” as “They have drawn a great Judge, for them … The Judge’s name is Tim Kelly, and he was, sadly, appointed by ‘TRUMP.'”.

On Monday, also apparently in response to the legal action and the response of other news outlets, the White House started broadcasting a live video stream that it called “Trump TV” promising “Top videos, major remarks, and must-see highlights streaming 24/7 and updated in real time”.

To date it has broadcast old videos such as the President’s inauguration ceremony and a Pete Hegseth speech to the Marine Corps.

What does the law say?

One of the most recent legal precedents was set by the same judge who was randomly selected to decide on this case: Timothy Kelly.

In 2018 Kelly ordered that CNN reporter Jim Acosta should get his White House press pass back, after he was banned following a contentious exchange with the president at a press conference. Kelly said CNN had Fifth Amendment “due process” rights not to be arbitrarily banned.

Legal commentator and attorney Lawrence J. Tjan says the press has no general right to enter every part of the White House, but “once the government creates a system that gives bona fide journalists access, courts have placed limits on how that access may be withdrawn”.

However he also notes that after Associated Press was banned by the president, for refusing to rename the Gulf of Mexico, an appellate court has ruled that presidents retain substantial authority over who they allow into limited-access settings.

Law professor Wayne Unger wrote for The Conversation that while many experts believe Trump’s ban is almost certainly unconstitutional under the First Amendment, it may not be as simple as that.

“There is no Supreme Court precedent that specifically provides a clear constitutional right of access to the White House,” he said. However once that access is granted, it “undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law”.

“I expect the federal judge to promptly, but temporarily, reinstate the news outlets’ press passes while Trump tries to argue that his actions are constitutional, which in my view, they are not,” Unger said.

Are other media taking sides?

Major US television outlets agreed to suspend some video coverage of Trump, in a demonstration of solidarity with the banned channels.

No broadcaster covered the ribbon-cutting for the White House’s new helipad, and the president’s remarks were inaudible on a hastily-arranged live stream.

Media organisations also joined in a boycott of the photographic pool at the White House. In a statement, The New York Times said it “will not publish or distribute any images taken as part of the White House still photography pool today, in conjunction with the other members of that pool and in a show of support for the news organisations being unfairly targeted by the president’s barring of journalists from the White House”.

However it added “we remain committed to covering the president’s travel to New York City today”.

There was normal media coverage for the president’s visit to meet New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who said he had told Trump that all members of the press would be present.

Asked about the White House pool boycott, Trump said “they said they were going to boycott me, but they never boycott me. So I wasn’t very worried about that. Look at all that press”.