The judge who sided with CNN and its reporter Jim Acosta in their lawsuit against the White House was nominated by President Trump and, until last year, was chief counsel to the GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was confirmed by the Senate in September in a 94-2 vote, will continue overseeing the case. He ruled on Friday that the White House must return CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s “hard pass,” which allows him to report from the White House grounds, stating that Acosta was not given due process when it was suspended last week.
Kelly, 49, was a top staffer to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, from 2013 to 2017 and is a member of the conservative Federalist Society. He has also worked in private practice and as a federal prosecutor. He once spent a year representing low-income residents of Washington, D.C., in cases involving public benefits, landlord-tenant, and family law.
A Catholic who has two young daughters, Kelly’s wife, Sharon Kershbaum, works as the chief operating officer for the Washington, D.C., Department of Human Services
A core part of Kelly’s decision was the White House’s inability in a hearing Wednesday to say who first made the decision to suspend the pass. “Whatever process occurred is still shrouded in mystery,” Kelly said.
Justice Department lawyer James Burnham, representing the White House, had argued in the hearing this week that Acosta was afforded due process when Trump, during a press conference after the midterm elections, told him directly that he was ready to move on to a different questioner, even as Acosta refused to relinquish the shared microphone.
But Kelly said that the admonishment did not satisfy the requirement for a more formal process wherein Acosta could appeal any decision the White House made to limit his access.
The ruling is limited and only grants Acosta his pass while the lawsuit continues. Kelly asked that the White House and CNN both file reports to move forward by Monday.
Kelly made clear that he was not yet ruling on any larger merits of the case, in particular, whether CNN and Acosta’s First Amendment rights had been violated.
He said only that Acosta had been denied due process and had been cause irreparable harm by having his reporting capabilities limited for several days by the White House.
