BREAKING: Trump’s CNN Ban Hits a MAJOR Problem in Court!

Donald Trump’s sweeping ban on CNN, Politico and MS NOW has reached federal court.

And the judge Trump himself put on the bench quickly identified a potentially serious problem with how the White House handled it.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly opened Wednesday’s hearing by pointing to longstanding court precedent requiring due process before journalists can have their White House press credentials revoked.

Then he turned to what Trump’s White House actually did.

“I think it is fair to say that the process the court laid out [in those cases] wasn’t followed here,” Kelly said.

That’s a significant development in the legal battle over Trump’s extraordinary decision to bar three major news organizations from White House grounds.

But it is not yet a ruling.

Kelly ended Wednesday’s hearing without deciding whether to grant CNN, Politico and MS NOW the temporary restraining order they are seeking to immediately restore their access.

“I’ll consider what you’ve told me today and try to get you an answer as soon as I can,” Kelly told the attorneys.

Still, his comments put a spotlight on one of the most obvious questions hanging over the White House’s actions:

What process did the administration actually give the journalists before taking their credentials away?

Trump announced Friday that CNN, Politico and MS NOW would be banned “effective immediately,” accusing the organizations of “FAKE” reporting.

Reporters from the three organizations were subsequently denied entry to White House grounds and had their hard passes deactivated.

According to the organizations, they received no advance notice and no opportunity to challenge the decision before losing access.

Only later did the administration send letters outlining alleged violations.

Those letters, dated Tuesday — days after Trump announced the ban — accused the outlets of violating standards of “professionalism and decorum” and publishing sensitive or classified national-security information.

The White House gave the organizations until Friday to respond.

That chronology matters because Kelly has been here before.

Trump nominated Kelly to the federal bench during his first term.

Then, in 2018, Kelly presided over CNN’s legal battle after the first Trump administration revoked reporter Jim Acosta’s White House credential.

Kelly ordered Acosta’s pass temporarily restored after finding that the White House had not provided sufficient due process.

Now another Trump media fight has landed in the same courtroom.

CNN, Politico and MS NOW argue that Trump’s latest ban violates both the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.

Their lawyers contend that the organizations were targeted because of their coverage of Trump — what they characterize as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination — and that their credentials were revoked without the notice and opportunity to respond required by due process.

Trump’s Justice Department is fighting back.

Government attorneys argue that White House access is “a privilege, not a right” and say the administration has legitimate interests in protecting national security and enforcing standards of professionalism and decorum.

The DOJ has cited reporting involving sensitive or classified information among its reasons for revoking access.

That leaves Kelly confronting questions that go beyond whether Trump dislikes CNN, Politico or MS NOW.

The immediate issue is whether the government followed the legal procedures required before taking away access that credentialed reporters already possessed.

And on Wednesday, the Trump-appointed judge made clear that he sees a problem there.

Trump has already publicly attacked Kelly over the case, writing that the outlets had drawn a “great Judge, for them” and lamenting that Kelly was “sadly, appointed by ‘TRUMP.’”

Now the president has to wait for the decision of the judge he once selected.

Kelly hasn’t ruled against Trump.

Not yet.

But his first assessment of how the White House handled the ban could hardly have been the opening the administration wanted:

The required process, he said, “wasn’t followed here.”