Mitigate Risk. Lead with Clarity.

COURTS & LITIGATION  

Federal Judge Orders White House to Restore Access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico

• Court Blocks Trump’s White House Ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico 

• CNN, MS NOW, Politico sue over denied White House access 

• White House Defends Trump’s Ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico in Court Filing 

• CNN, MS NOW and Politico Return to White House After Fight Over Access

OVERVIEW

A federal judge on September 24 ordered the Trump administration to immediately restore White House press credentials to CNN, MS NOW and Politico, finding that the news organizations were likely to succeed in showing that the administration violated their constitutional due process rights when it revoked their access. 

Trump announced the ban in a September 18 Truth Social post, criticizing the outlets’ reporting as untruthful and negative. The three news organizations filed suit on September 21, alleging that the ban constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights. The administration subsequently defended the restrictions on several grounds, including alleged violations of press standards and national-security concerns. 

U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly granted a 14-day temporary restraining order, directing the White House to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” the outlets’ press credentials. Kelly found that the reporters were likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment claim because they were given neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard before their credentials were revoked. He also found that the administration had not established clear standards governing the conduct that could result in revocation. 

Kelly also questioned the administration’s national-security justification, noting that Trump’s initial announcement focused on the outlets’ allegedly negative and untruthful reporting and that the record contained little factual support showing that revoking their credentials would protect national security. The ruling does not resolve the outlets’ broader First Amendment claim that they were excluded because of their reporting. The temporary order will remain in effect for 14 days while the court considers expedited briefing on a preliminary injunction. 

Despite the ruling, reporters from all three outlets were initially denied entry to the White House on the morning of September 24, prompting the organizations to seek an emergency hearing to enforce the court’s order. Their credentials were subsequently restored, and reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were ultimately allowed back inside the White House by midday. 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The court’s ruling rests primarily on the Fifth Amendment’s procedural due process protections, not yet on the outlets’ First Amendment viewpoint-discrimination claim. Under longstanding D.C. Circuit precedent, including Sherrill v. Knight and Karem v. Trump, a White House reporter with a duly issued press credential has a protected liberty interest in that credential. Before revoking it, the government generally must provide notice, an opportunity to be heard and sufficiently clear standards identifying conduct that could result in revocation. 

Kelly found that those requirements were likely not met. The reporters received no notice or opportunity to respond before their credentials were revoked, and the court found no formally articulated standards that would have put them on notice that the reporting identified by the administration could result in losing White House access. Kelly also rejected, at this stage, the administration’s argument that national-security concerns justified providing process only after the credentials were revoked, finding little factual support in the record connecting the revocations to protecting national security. 

The ruling is temporary and does not finally determine whether the White House ban was unconstitutional. The 14-day restraining order restores the status quo while the court considers whether to issue a preliminary injunction on a fuller record. The outlets’ separate First Amendment claim that they were excluded because of the content and viewpoint of their reporting also remains unresolved.

BRIDGE POV

A free and independent press is an essential institution, regardless of who occupies the White House or whether leaders agree with the coverage. Government officials have every right to challenge reporting they believe is inaccurate or unfair. The more consequential question is whether access to government can be conditioned on whether coverage is favorable.

The court’s ruling reinforces a broader principle relevant to every institution: standards governing access, engagement and accountability should be clear, consistently applied and accompanied by appropriate process, particularly when criticism is uncomfortable. Institutional independence is tested not when organizations agree with what is being said, but when they do not.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Protect Institutional Independence. Ensure policies governing media access, stakeholder engagement and external communications are based on clear standards that can be applied consistently, including when coverage or criticism is unfavorable.
   
   
2. Establish Clear Escalation Protocols. Define how communications, legal and executive leadership will respond when reporting is believed to be inaccurate, confidential information is disclosed or legitimate security concerns arise. Separate factual correction and security issues from disagreement with editorial viewpoint.
   
   
3. Prepare for High-Pressure Media Decisions. Use scenario planning to establish decision-making principles before a controversy occurs. Determine in advance who has authority to restrict access, what criteria justify that action and what review process applies, reducing the risk of reactive decisions that create legal or reputational exposure.

See also: The New York Times Countersues EEOC Alleging Retaliation and Constitutional Violations (Issue 73); ABC Sues FCC Over Early Broadcast License Review, Alleging First Amendment Retaliation (Issue 78)

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT   

Corporate DEI Programs See Bipartisan Pushback Against Federal Rollbacks 

• Trump slashed DEI. Now it's making a surprising bipartisan comeback

OVERVIEW

After more than a year of aggressive federal action to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs, beginning with Executive Order 14173 in January 2025 and continuing through DOJ enforcement actions against major contractors, new data show public attitudes moving in a different direction.

The 2026 Bentley University-Gallup Business in Society survey found that 72% of Americans believe promoting DEI should be a business priority. 75% say businesses with diverse workforces produce more innovative products, up from 64% in 2025, while 71% say diverse workforces are more profitable, up from 61%.

These perceptions increased across political affiliations. 92% of Democrats, 70% of independents and 41% of Republicans say diverse workforces are more profitable, increases of 7, 11 and 11 percentage points respectively from 2025.

On innovation, support rose to 94% among Democrats, 75% among independents and 46% among Republicans.95% of Democrats view DEI as a key business priority, compared with 71% of independents and 37% of Republicans.

While differences remain, support is rising across all three groups.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The federal government's campaign against corporate DEI has relied primarily on executive action, changes in enforcement policy and settlements rather than new legislation. Executive Order 14173 did not amend Title VII or 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the administration's recent settlements with major employers have generally resolved allegations without judicial determinations establishing that the challenged practices violated federal law.

The legal distinction between unlawful discrimination and lawful diversity efforts therefore remains important. Title VII prohibits employment decisions motivated by race, sex or other protected characteristics, including when those decisions are made through programs labeled as DEI. At the same time, the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard addressed race-conscious college admissions and did not itself overrule the Court's employment precedents governing voluntary affirmative action under Title VII. Existing Supreme Court precedent permits certain narrowly structured voluntary affirmative action plans designed to address manifest imbalances in traditionally segregated job categories, subject to significant limitations. 

For employers, the applicable statutes remain in place even as the federal government's interpretation and enforcement priorities have shifted. Programs involving race- or sex-based preferences in hiring, promotion, compensation or other employment decisions face heightened federal scrutiny, while initiatives structured around broad recruitment, workplace inclusion, professional development and removing barriers to opportunity present different legal considerations and must be evaluated based on their specific design and operation.

BRIDGE POV

The data reinforces why politics should not be a business strategy. Companies are operating in an environment of heightened federal scrutiny, but the consumers and employees they serve have not moved in lockstep with the political debate. The Bentley-Gallup findings show that Americans increasingly recognize a connection between workforce diversity, innovation and profitability, including across political affiliations.

The answer is neither to ignore legal risk nor to abandon inclusion in response to political pressure. Companies should separate what the law actually prohibits from what the current political environment may discourage. Business decisions should be grounded in applicable law, organizational values and evidence about what drives performance, rather than assumptions about where public sentiment is headed.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Separate Legal Risk from Political Pressure. Review DEI programs against current law and actual enforcement risk. Where programs are lawful, make decisions about whether to maintain, modify or discontinue them based on business objectives and evidence, not political pressure alone.
   
   
2. Reconnect Inclusion to Business Performance. Evaluate whether inclusion strategies are delivering against measurable business priorities such as innovation, employee engagement, talent development and consumer relevance. Use internal data alongside external research to determine what is working.
   
   
3. Test Assumptions About Stakeholder Sentiment. Do not assume the political debate reflects the views of employees, consumers or other stakeholders. Use research and direct stakeholder insights to understand what your audience actually value before making significant changes to inclusion strategies.

See also: Shareholders Overwhelmingly Reject Anti-DEI Proposals for Second Consecutive Year (Issue 70); Shareholders Continue to Reject Anti-DEI and Related Workplace Policy Proposals During 2026 Proxy Season (Issue 73); Deloitte Pays $21.5 Million to Resolve DOJ False Claims Act Allegations Over DEI Employment Practices; Accenture Settles DOJ Diversity Discrimination Claims for $25 Million (Issue 80)

Starbucks Settles with Florida Over Allegations of Illegal Quotas and Race and Sex-Based Employment Decisions 

• Starbucks settles Florida lawsuit claiming diversity policies were illegal 

On September 17, Starbucks settled a lawsuit brought by the state of Florida alleging that its diversity policies violated state anti-discrimination law through race- and sex-based quotas and preferences in hiring, promotion and compensation, including tying executive compensation to diversity goals. Starbucks denied wrongdoing but agreed not to use race- or sex-based quotas or preferences in employment decisions, to provide annual compliance certifications for four years and to pay $1 million toward Florida's litigation costs.

The agreement, which Florida says applies nationwide, also requires Starbucks to withdraw from organizations that require increased racial diversity on its board. The settlement resolves the case without a judicial finding that Starbucks violated the law.

See also: Starbucks Files Motion to Dismiss Missouri DEI Lawsuit (Issue 9); Florida Attorney General Files DEI Lawsuit Against Starbucks (Issue 43); Federal Court Dismisses Missouri's Anti-DEI Lawsuit Against Starbucks (Issue 52)

Federal Court Blocks OMB from Conditioning Education Research Funds on Compliance with Anti-DEI Executive Orders

• Judge vacates anti-DEI directive that led to teacher training grant cuts

On September 17, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the Office of Management and Budget exceeded its authority by requiring the Department of Education to spend congressionally appropriated funds consistent with two Trump administration executive orders addressing DEI and federal grantmaking. The court found that OMB lacked congressional authorization to use the apportionment process to impose executive policy priorities and vacated the challenged conditions.

The ruling does not invalidate either executive order. The court declined for now to order the Department of Education to obligate approximately $180 million in education research funds scheduled to expire September 30 and ordered a status report by September 28.

See also: OMB/SBA Comment Period Story (Issue 74); Trump Administration Targets Bike Infrastructure as "DEI" (Issue 80); EPA Terminates Environmental Justice Grants in Communities of Color (Issue 76)