General

The Abu Dhabi Court for Family, Civil and Administrative Cases has ordered an individual to pay Dh7,599 in compensation for physically assaulting another person, verbally abusing him in public and damaging his mobile phone by forcibly throwing it.

The claimant had filed a lawsuit seeking Dh20,000 in compensation for material and moral damages arising from the incident. His claim included Dh5,099 for the damaged phone and Dh14,901 for the physical assault, verbal abuse and resulting harm to his dignity and reputation.

He also requested interest at 5 per cent a year from the date of filing the case until full payment, in addition to court fees and legal expenses. In support of his claim, he submitted the criminal judgment against the defendant, a certificate confirming that the judgment had become final, and the phone's purchase invoice.

The court examined the purchase invoice, which established that the phone was worth Dh5,099. Having found that the device was damaged as a result of the defendant's actions, the court concluded that the claimant had suffered a direct financial loss equivalent to its value.

It consequently awarded Dh5,099 to compensate for the material damage caused by the destruction of the phone.

The court also considered the findings of the criminal judgment, which established that the defendant had directed insulting and abusive remarks at the claimant, harming his honour and reputation. The incident had taken place in public, in the presence of other people, and involved both verbal abuse and the forcible seizure and throwing of the phone.

The court held that such conduct could undermine a person's dignity and standing in society, causing embarrassment, distress and psychological suffering. It treated these consequences as moral damage distinct from the financial loss resulting from the damaged device.

Finding a direct causal link between the defendant's conduct and the claimant's non-material harm, the court assessed compensation for the emotional and psychological suffering at Dh2,500.

The total compensation was therefore fixed at Dh7,599, comprising Dh5,099 for material damage and Dh2,500 for moral harm.

US President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to revive his dismissed lawsuit against his Democratic rival in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, accusing her, former FBI Director James Comey and others of conspiring to damage his campaign by linking it to Russia.

Trump filed the appeal after a federal judge dismissed the case and ordered him and one of his lawyers to pay nearly $1 million in sanctions for bringing what the judge described as a “frivolous” lawsuit. A US appeals court subsequently upheld both the dismissal and the sanctions.

Trump’s lawyers argued in their appeal that Supreme Court intervention was necessary to protect the presidency. They said the lower courts’ decisions reflected “a deeply troubling trend of federal courts using sanctions and disciplinary threats to punish the president and his lawyers for legitimate legal positions that those courts (erroneously) reject”.

In 2022, after leaving office following his defeat in the 2020 election, Trump sued Clinton, Comey, former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, the Democratic National Committee and numerous others in a lengthy complaint filed in federal court in Florida.

Trump, who has a history of bringing lawsuits against political adversaries, alleged that Clinton and her allies had conspired before the 2016 election to discredit him through what he called a false narrative that he and his campaign had colluded with Russia. The complaint included allegations of racketeering and conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood, among other claims.

Trump defeated Clinton in the 2016 election despite losing the national popular vote. He served his first term as president from 2017 to 2021.

US officials have accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 election. An investigation led by former FBI director Robert Mueller documented extensive contacts between members of Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives who sought to influence the election in his favour. Trump has repeatedly dismissed allegations of Russian interference as a “hoax”.

Since losing to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020, Trump has continued to make false claims of widespread electoral fraud in that election. He returned to the presidency in 2025 after defeating Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has continued to repeat those claims.

‘Political Manifesto’

US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against Clinton, citing numerous deficiencies, including the excessive delay in bringing some of the claims. The judge compared the complaint to a “two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him”.

Middlebrooks subsequently ordered Trump and his lead lawyer in the case, Alina Habba, to pay nearly $1 million in legal fees and costs. He imposed the sanctions on the grounds that the lawsuit was intended “to dishonestly advance a political narrative” and criticised Trump and his lawyers for what he called a “continuing pattern of misuse of the courts”.

The judge found that the lawsuit employed abusive litigation tactics, contained “knowingly false” factual allegations and advanced “frivolous” legal theories.

The Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the rulings, including the sanctions, in 2025. “Many of Trump’s and Habba’s legal arguments were indeed frivolous,” the appeals court said.

In Friday’s filing, lawyers representing Trump and Habba argued that the deadline for bringing the lawsuit should have been extended because Trump had deferred legal action during his first presidential term to fulfil his constitutional responsibilities.

“This court’s intervention is necessary to protect the presidency, and to prevent judicial disagreement from becoming a licence to punish its advocates,” the filing stated.

Mueller, who was appointed special counsel by the Justice Department, published a report in 2019 setting out the findings of his investigation. The report concluded that Russia had “interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion”. However, it also stated that the investigation had not established that members of Trump’s campaign conspired or co-ordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Mueller reported finding “numerous links” between Russia and the Trump campaign and said the campaign “expected it would benefit” from Moscow’s efforts to influence the election in Trump’s favour.

Trump’s then attorney general, William Barr, appointed another special counsel, John Durham, in 2019 to investigate possible misconduct by the FBI.

In a report published in 2023, Durham concluded that the FBI lacked “actual evidence” to investigate Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and had relied too heavily on information provided by his political opponents.

Trump’s Justice Department indicted Comey last year, accusing him of making false statements and obstructing Congress following allegations that he had lied about authorising leaks to the news media. Comey was among several of Trump’s adversaries to face criminal charges during his presidency. A federal judge later dismissed the indictment, ruling that the prosecutor personally selected by Trump to bring the case had been unlawfully appointed.

Steele, who worked for an opposition research firm hired by a law firm on behalf of Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, compiled a dossier alleging links between Trump’s campaign and Russia, alongside other controversial claims. Trump denied the allegations.

The Kuwaiti Cabinet has approved draft legislation amending the country’s notarisation law and provisions of the Civil Code, introducing measures aimed at simplifying procedures, expanding digital services and strengthening protections for family and property rights.

The Cabinet approved the draft decree-law amending Law No. 10 of 2020 on notarisation during its weekly meeting chaired by Prime Minister Sheikh Ahmad Al-Abdullah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah. The legislation was subsequently referred to Emir Sheikh Meshal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.

The proposed amendments seek to modernise notarisation services through closer coordination between government authorities, greater use of electronic procedures and stronger safeguards for official records and documents. The changes are intended to facilitate transactions without affecting existing legal rights or established positions.

A key reform would transfer responsibility for authenticating corporate documents from government notaries to the competent unit at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry’s Commercial Registry. The proposed system would also establish arrangements for exchanging records and information between the Commercial Registry and the Ministry of Justice.

The amendments would cover corporate documents including incorporation contracts, amendments, dissolution and liquidation documents, as well as withdrawal agreements. Mandatory notarisation of such documents at the Ministry of Justice would be removed, with authentication instead handled by the competent unit at the Commercial Registry.

The move is designed to reduce duplication between government bodies and streamline corporate procedures. The Ministry of Justice would continue handling corporate transactions until the new unit becomes operational under a joint decision by the Ministers of Justice and Commerce and Industry.

Documents that have already been notarised would retain their validity and full legal effect. The amendments would take effect six months after publication, allowing time for the necessary regulatory, administrative and technical preparations.

New Safeguards For Marriage And Divorce

The proposed legislation also introduces changes to notarisation procedures involving personal status matters, including marriage, divorce, marital separation, reconciliation and related proceedings.

Under the draft, a marriage contract could not be notarised unless both parties had completed a prescribed premarital qualification programme. The Minister of Justice would determine the programme’s content, duration, completion requirements and implementing authority, while the executive regulations would specify cases in which the requirement could be waived.

The Justice Minister, Nasser Al-Sumait, said the premarital qualification requirement was intended to improve awareness among prospective spouses of their rights, duties and responsibilities and contribute to greater family stability.

Couples seeking divorce or khula would also generally be required to first approach the Family Dispute Settlement Center. The procedure would provide an opportunity for reconciliation and require the prescribed period to pass without a settlement before the matter could proceed.

Exceptions would apply to final judicial rulings and personal status cases in which reconciliation is not legally permissible.

The Cabinet said the measures were intended to protect family rights, strengthen family stability and provide families with a meaningful opportunity to resolve disputes and preserve family cohesion.

Electronic And Remote Notarisation

The draft legislation would also give the Ministry of Justice greater scope to provide notarisation electronically. Notarisation could be conducted through the ministry’s electronic system or by video communication using approved mechanisms, alongside traditional personal attendance.

Electronic and remote notarisation of personal status matters would be subject to safeguards designed to ensure procedural integrity and verify the identities and consent of the parties. The cases in which personal attendance would remain mandatory would be determined separately.

The reforms would also strengthen electronic coordination between the Family Court Registry Department and the Notarisation Department.

Under the proposed system, final court rulings relating to marriage and separation could be automatically entered into notarisation records, reducing the need for separate administrative procedures and improving the consistency of official records.

Al-Sumait said the draft also provides for the notarisation of marriage, separation, revocation of divorce and legally prohibited breastfeeding matters. Where notarisation is not possible, the parties concerned would be required to approach the courts to safeguard legal rights and lineage.

Reform Of Jointly Owned Property

Separately, the Cabinet approved a draft decree-law amending Article 830 of the Civil Code, issued under Law Decree No. 67 of 1980, concerning jointly owned residential property.

The proposed amendment would give courts the power, subject to specified conditions, to order the continuation of joint ownership for a limited period where necessary to protect a co-owner who does not have another home.

The amendment would also provide an alternative to the sale of jointly owned property by public auction where physical division of the property is not possible.

Under the proposed mechanism, other co-owners could purchase the share of the party seeking partition at its fair value. This would allow the ownership arrangement to be resolved without necessarily forcing the entire property into a public auction.

Taken together, the proposed amendments represent a broader effort to modernise Kuwait’s legal and administrative framework by combining procedural simplification with digital integration and safeguards for family and property rights.

The Abu Dhabi Federal Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of two suspects for consuming psychotropic and narcotic substances, sentencing each to three months in prison followed by deportation from the UAE.

The case began after the Public Prosecution referred the suspects and others to criminal trial on charges including membership of an organised gang and possession of amphetamines with intent to traffic.

According to the case documents, the first suspect consumed morphine outside the circumstances permitted by law and later took the psychotropic substances Nordazepam, Oxazepam and Temazepam. The second and third suspects were also accused of consuming morphine.

The court of first instance sentenced the first and second suspects to three months in prison each for drug consumption. It also ordered the confiscation of the seized items and their deportation from the UAE after completion of their sentences.

The Public Prosecution appealed against the ruling concerning the charge of belonging to an organised gang. The Federal Court of Appeal accepted the appeal in form but rejected it on its merits.

The Federal Supreme Court subsequently upheld the appeal ruling, leaving the prison sentences, confiscation order and deportation of the two convicted suspects in place.

Christa Pike, who was sentenced to death for a 1995 murder, awoke “angry and confused” in hospital this week and faces a long recovery after surviving Tennessee’s failed attempt to execute her, her lawyers said on Wednesday.

Pike, 50, was taken from the execution chamber to a Nashville hospital a week ago, unconscious and critically ill, with severe injuries to her arms after two injections of the barbiturate pentobarbital failed to kill her at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution.

As recently as Monday, her lawyers believed Pike was brain dead and that life support would be withdrawn the following day. Her failed execution was the second such incident in Tennessee this year, prompting renewed scrutiny of the state’s use of the death penalty.

“But on Tuesday, to the shock of everyone, including me, including her team and including the medical team, Christa woke up and began talking,” Randall Spivey, one of her lawyers, told reporters after a court hearing on Wednesday.

During the hearing, a judge ordered Tennessee officials to preserve syringes and other evidence from the failed execution.

“She is angry and confused about everything right now,” Spivey said. “She is very aware that the state tried to execute her.”

Governor Bill Lee has suspended all executions in Tennessee for the remainder of the year while investigators examine the failed executions of Pike and Tony Carruthers in May, when prison officials were unable to establish intravenous lines.

Pike remains seriously ill and shackled to her hospital bed, her lawyers said. She cannot swallow or eat and has pneumonia. Her hands and arms are “tremendously swollen”, leaving her unable to move them, and it remains unclear whether she will regain her mobility.

Although she continues to experience “cognitive confusion”, her lawyers said she has been speaking with people around her.

“She has wanted to know what’s happened, and she’s asked about several people,” Spivey said. “She’s asked about the victim’s family.”

Pike was sentenced to death for her role, as a teenager, in the torture and murder of her 19-year-old schoolmate, Colleen Slemmer, in 1995.

Her lawyers say she is the first person known to have survived a completed execution attempt in the United States. They argue that the attempt amounted to a violation of the US Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

A Unique Case

Pike’s lawyers are continuing their legal action against state officials, seeking greater transparency over execution procedures in Tennessee and challenging the secrecy that typically surrounds them.

Earlier on Wednesday, Davidson County Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea Myles ordered Tennessee officials to preserve all evidence from the failed execution, including syringes, drug packaging and lot numbers, catheters, intravenous lines and gurney restraints.

Pike’s all-female execution team used at least seven needles during an ordeal that lasted more than two hours, her lawyers said. One needle was bent at a 90-degree angle when it was removed.

Myles largely sided with Pike’s lawyers at the end of Wednesday’s hearing, describing the litigation, which began in January as part of efforts to prevent the scheduled execution, as unusual because no one had expected Pike to survive. “This case is unique, to say the least,” Myles said.

She also ordered the state to preserve internal communications relating to the attempted execution, including incident reports, witness accounts and encrypted messages.

Myles has yet to rule on a request by Pike’s lawyers for the Tennessee Department of Correction to allow them to obtain any residual traces of the execution drugs for chemical analysis.

The Tennessee Department of Correction has opposed what it described as a “duplicative and unnecessary” preservation order, arguing that it is already legally required to preserve evidence and had already agreed to share most, if not all, of the material sought by Pike’s lawyers.

Tennessee and other US states have long struggled to obtain drugs used in executions. Major pharmaceutical companies generally do not supply them because of restrictions imposed by European countries on companies whose products are used in torture or executions.

Tennessee, like other states, has therefore turned to small, largely unregulated compounding pharmacies to produce limited batches of execution drugs, while promising to keep their identities confidential.

“Today’s hearing was about transparency, about why Christa, the courts, the media and the public should not simply take the state’s word about what happened last Wednesday,” Luke Ihnen, another lawyer for Pike, told reporters after the judge’s ruling.

He repeated the call for Governor Lee to commute Pike’s death sentence to life imprisonment and never attempt to execute her again. A spokesperson for Lee, who rejected a clemency appeal two days before the failed execution, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Pike’s lawyers had previously sought an alternative to lethal injection, arguing that her small veins and related medical conditions made her concerned that the execution could go wrong.

A failed lethal injection in Tennessee has intensified legal and human-rights scrutiny of the US death penalty, with questions emerging over execution procedures, access to information about lethal drugs and the treatment of prisoners during botched executions.

“There is no one that wanted what happened last night to happen,” Lee, a Republican, told reporters. “It’s a tragedy, and it’s deeply disturbing to me that that has happened in this state. The people deserve better and we’re going to make sure that happens.”

‘Kind’ With Her Executioners

Pike’s lawyers provided new details about what happened inside the execution chamber, saying her request for an all-female execution team appeared to have been granted.

The process of establishing intravenous access took about an hour. During that time, Pike offered prison staff guidance on where they might insert the needle to obtain better access to her veins, according to Spivey.

“Miss Pike was kind and she was cooperative and she was at peace the whole time,” Spivey said. “She was ready.”

Pike continued speaking with her spiritual adviser and members of the execution team after the first dose of the lethal injection was administered, wishing them “loving kindness”, Spivey said.

The account has added to wider questions about the legal safeguards surrounding capital punishment, particularly the standards states must meet when carrying out an execution and the treatment of prisoners when an execution does not proceed as intended.

Secrecy Around Execution Drugs

The failed execution has also drawn attention to the way US states obtain drugs used in lethal injections.

European pharmaceutical companies are generally prohibited from supplying drugs for executions, leaving US prison authorities largely dependent on small, lightly regulated compounding pharmacies. Procurement arrangements are often protected by confidentiality rules, making it difficult for prisoners and their lawyers to establish where execution drugs came from or how they were prepared.

Tennessee moved to a one-drug lethal injection procedure using pentobarbital, a powerful barbiturate, in 2024. It remained unclear where the state obtained the drugs used in Wednesday’s unsuccessful execution. Pike’s lawyers said the information had also been withheld from them.

The lack of disclosure can become a significant legal issue in capital cases, where defence lawyers may challenge the reliability, provenance and suitability of drugs before an execution takes place. Access to such information can also feature in broader arguments concerning due process and whether a proposed execution method complies with constitutional protections.

Human Rights Concerns

Most countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, as have 23 US states. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, said Pike’s case showed why the United States should follow suit.

“The prolonged suffering – physical and mental – arising from multiple failed execution attempts is abhorrent, and cruel,” Turk said in a statement.

His comments reflect longstanding international human-rights concerns over whether an execution that results in prolonged physical or psychological suffering can breach legal and ethical standards governing the treatment of prisoners.

The issue is particularly significant in the United States, where capital punishment remains legal in a number of states but is subject to constitutional limitations. Challenges to execution methods have frequently centred on whether the procedure creates an unconstitutional risk of severe pain or unnecessary suffering.

Case Behind The Sentence

Pike was 18 in January 1995 when she, her 17-year-old boyfriend Tadaryl Shipp and a third companion lured Colleen Slemmer, a 19-year-old classmate at their Knoxville Job Corps vocational centre, into a wooded area.

Slemmer was tortured and killed. Pike and Shipp confessed to the killing and were convicted of first-degree murder.

Pike’s case has since become part of the wider debate over the use of capital punishment and the safeguards surrounding executions.

The latest events are likely to place renewed attention on the state's responsibility to ensure that an execution is carried out according to established procedures and without unnecessary suffering, while also giving defence lawyers sufficient information to challenge the method before it is used.

For death-penalty opponents, the failed execution has provided another example of the risks inherent in a system in which the state deliberately takes a prisoner's life. For authorities, the incident raises the separate question of how execution procedures can be made more reliable while remaining within constitutional and legal limits.

Kaden Boriss has been named ‘Top Corporate Law Firm of the Year’ at the Global Brand Awards 2026, recognising the UAE-based firm’s position in corporate law and its expanding presence across regional and international markets.

The award was presented at the Global Brand Awards ceremony held at Address Sky View in Dubai on October 2. Dr Sunil Ambalavelil, Global Executive Chairman of Kaden Boriss, received the award on behalf of the firm from Mervyn D’Couto, Chief Managing Officer at HeyBobo.

Organised by UK-based Global Brands Magazine, the awards recognise brands across a range of industries for performance, innovation, customer experience and consistency. The 2026 edition brought together business leaders and brands from sectors including banking, real estate, technology, hospitality, education and professional services.

The recognition comes as Kaden Boriss continues to position its corporate legal practice around business-oriented advice, combining legal risk management with commercial considerations faced by companies operating in the UAE and other international markets.

“Corporate legal work should not be limited to identifying risks after they arise. Our philosophy is to understand the client’s business, anticipate the legal and regulatory challenges and build solutions that support sustainable growth,” Ambalavelil told The Law Reporters after receiving the award.

He said the firm’s approach was also centred on long-term relationships rather than individual transactions. “For us, effective legal counsel means understanding where a business is today, where it intends to go and how its legal structure can support that journey. The objective is to give clients clarity and confidence while protecting their interests as they expand,” he added.

The Global Brand Awards, now in their 14th edition, evaluated companies across international markets before the Dubai ceremony. Global Brands Magazine said the selection process involved research by its internal team and assessment by independent evaluators.

The awards also placed emphasis on the changing role of technology and artificial intelligence in business and branding. The 2026 programme included discussions on AI-driven customer engagement and the relationship between artificial intelligence and consumer trust.

Kaden Boriss’ recognition comes against a backdrop of growing demand for corporate legal services as businesses operating in the UAE navigate increasingly complex regulatory, investment and cross-border requirements.

The firm advises businesses on areas including corporate structuring, commercial agreements, mergers and acquisitions, investment and regulatory matters, with its wider professional network supporting clients on cross-border business requirements.

Ambalavelil said the award belonged to the wider Kaden Boriss team and reflected its emphasis on combining legal expertise with a practical understanding of business. “The strongest corporate legal advice is advice that works in the real world. It must be technically sound, commercially practical and aligned with the client’s long-term objectives,” he said.

The Global Brand Awards have previously recognised international brands including Emirates, Dubai Duty Free, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Microsoft, Malaysia Airlines and Harley-Davidson.

US President Donald Trump’s administration complied with a federal judge’s order to restore White House access to three media outlets it had banned — CNN, Politico and MS NOW — but the legal battle over the ban is continuing.

The three news organisations have now asked the judge to extend the temporary protection that restored their access while they challenge the administration’s decision. The case could also bring the courts to the broader question of whether the ban violated the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and the press.

Here is what to know about the next steps in the lawsuit.

Did The Judge Issue A Final Ruling?

No. US District Judge Timothy Kelly in Washington issued a temporary restraining order that restored the outlets’ access for 14 days while their legal challenge proceeded.

In his ruling, Kelly said legal precedents establish that once White House press credentials are issued to journalists, they are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before those credentials are revoked.

Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, said the news organisations were likely to succeed in their claim that this constitutional right to due process had been violated.

But Kelly did not resolve a central issue in the case: the outlets’ argument that the ban violated their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The judge said it was not necessary to resolve that question because the due process claim was sufficient to justify temporarily blocking the ban.

The outlets subsequently asked Kelly to issue a preliminary injunction that would prevent the administration from enforcing the ban while the broader lawsuit is pending.

Can The Trump Administration Appeal?

If Kelly grants a preliminary injunction, the administration could ask a federal appeals court in Washington to overturn it. Trump had already indicated that he would appeal if he lost before Kelly.

Trump announced the ban last Friday, saying the three news organisations should not be able to publish what he described as false reports while covering the president.

In court filings, the Justice Department argued that the outlets’ coverage raised national security concerns, pointing to reports involving US missile stockpiles, construction of a White House ballroom and attendance at a recent Republican convention.

The administration has maintained that the decision was connected to the outlets’ reporting and national security concerns, while the news organisations argue that the ban was retaliatory and violated their constitutional rights.

Kelly previously handled a similar case in 2018, when Trump, during his first term, revoked the White House press credentials of then-CNN journalist Jim Acosta.

After Kelly issued a preliminary ruling in Acosta’s favour, the White House restored the journalist’s press pass, and Acosta voluntarily dropped the case.

Could The White House Try Again To Revoke Access?

The possibility remains central to the dispute. During a court hearing, the outlets’ lawyer warned that a ruling based solely on due process could allow the administration to attempt another ban after following a more formal procedure.

The lawyer had urged Kelly to rule on both the due process and First Amendment claims. He argued that resolving only the procedural issue could leave the administration free to begin the process again and seek to exclude the outlets on other grounds.

He pointed to the case involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, in which Trump sought her removal and the Supreme Court blocked an earlier attempt on due process grounds.

The lawyer has since said the outlets’ First Amendment arguments are expected to become a central part of the case in the coming weeks.

The administration, meanwhile, is expected to continue defending its national security justification for the restrictions.

The latest court filings mean the dispute is no longer limited to whether the outlets should regain access temporarily. The next stage will determine whether that protection remains in place while the court considers the wider constitutional questions raised by the ban.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico have filed a lawsuit seeking to restore their journalists’ access to the White House grounds, days after President Donald Trump revoked their access, turning to the courts in a dispute over constitutional protections for the press.

The news outlets described the ban as a “direct assault” on the First Amendment and “a blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles”, according to a complaint filed on Monday in federal court in Washington.

“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,” the outlets said. “But the Constitution does not allow a president or any other government official to deprive the press of their First Amendment rights and liberty and property interests with no notice or process based solely on his dislike of the content of their reporting.”

CNN, MS NOW and Politico are seeking a court order that would immediately reinstate their access to the White House while their lawsuit proceeds.

US District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, scheduled a hearing on the request for Wednesday. Kelly presided over a similar case in 2018, when CNN filed suit after the White House revoked the credentials of correspondent Jim Acosta. Kelly ordered Acosta’s access restored.

Trump cited that ruling in a social media post on Monday, criticising Kelly and noting that the judge was “sadly, appointed by ‘TRUMP’”. The president said, “we’ll go for an appeal” if Kelly rules against him.

Trump’s ban marked a significant escalation in the administration’s efforts to restrict press access to events and spaces that are in the public interest. Federal courts have previously overturned similar moves against reporters working at the White House campus. The First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the government from making laws that abridge freedom of speech and of the press.

All three news outlets said their journalists were denied access to the White House grounds on Saturday, a day after Trump announced the ban.

The move had an immediate impact on coverage of the president. CNN had been due to be the broadcaster travelling with Trump to New York on Monday ahead of the UN General Assembly but was removed from that roster.

CNBC reported on Monday that the White House television pool would not cover events during Trump’s trip to New York. CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins shared on social media an email she said was from Bryan Boughton, the current television pool chair. The email said that “effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President”. It cited the White House decision to prevent CNN from fulfilling its pool duties and said there “will be no replacement pool put in place”.

“The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organisation because it objects to its reporting,” ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News, members of the White House television pool, said in a joint statement on Monday.

Trump, who for years has dismissed critical coverage of his administration and policies as “fake news”, defended his move on social media on Monday.

“The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish,” Trump said. “It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America,” he added, claiming that such coverage is “a threat to our National Security”.

The White House on Monday indicated that it would provide coverage of the president’s activities on its own website, with what it called “Trump TV: The Essentials Station”.

“Watch the Trump Administration’s biggest moments all in one place. Top videos, major remarks, and must-see highlights streaming 24/7 and updated in real time,” said a note on the White House page for streaming videos. The page said the service would launch at 7 p.m. Washington time.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for more details.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, when asked about the ban during a CNBC interview, said he did not know much about the decision but went on to criticise the press and its coverage.

“We’ll see, maybe it’s a change in coverage at the White House,” he said.

The Treasury Department excluded journalists from several outlets, including Bloomberg News, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, from covering the recent Group of 20 finance ministers’ summit. The Defence Department separately barred mainstream media organisations last year from maintaining offices in the Pentagon after they refused to accept new limits on their activities.

Trump announced in a social media post on Friday that he was revoking access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico “effective immediately” because of what he described as unfavourable coverage of his administration. He warned that “other Fake News Media Outlets” could also soon be banned.

“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,” Trump said in the post.

In their lawsuit, the outlets argued that Trump’s ban violated the First Amendment by unlawfully retaliating against them because he framed it as a direct response to their coverage of his administration. They said the ban “brazenly discriminates based on editorial viewpoint”.

The news outlets also alleged that the president violated their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment because he failed to provide clear standards for his decision and did not give them an opportunity to contest the ban before it was implemented.

The move comes at a politically challenging time for the president, with his approval ratings at record lows and polls showing broad voter discontent with his economic agenda, particularly over high living costs and the Iran war. The conflict, now in its seventh month, has driven up global energy prices, further weighing on US households.

Last year, the Associated Press sued Trump administration officials after it was excluded by the White House from events, even though its reporters were still allowed to work from the grounds. The case is still being litigated.

The case is Cable News Network Inc. v. Trump, 26-cv-3287, US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Paramount Skydance emerged victorious from a legal battle over its $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery after settling with a California-led group of US states and a Hollywood writers union, paving the way for one of the largest media mergers in history.

The settlement marks a major win for Paramount CEO David Ellison, who battled the states for months to finalise a deal that would significantly concentrate power across Hollywood's film, television, streaming and news businesses.

Paramount agreed to abide by temporary film quotas and establish a news editorial independence board, avoiding a forced sale of cable assets such as CNN or any of its major film franchises.

The settlement was welcomed by Warner Bros shareholders but drew criticism from opponents of the merger, who said it could hurt Hollywood jobs. Shares of Paramount pared back earlier gains on Monday, while Warner Bros Discovery surged more than 10%.

The Writers Guild of America settled its parallel case against Paramount while maintaining that it still believed the deal would damage the industry. The states' settlement left the union to contend with the case without government backing in litigation that could have cost millions of dollars.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the settlement "a strong antitrust outcome". "More production, more choice, and guardrails that keep this industry competitive. I don't think these two companies should merge, but that's not something that we are focused on with our resolution here," he said at a press conference in Los Angeles.

Production Commitments

Under the state settlement, Paramount promised to bring more film production to the US by spending at least $300 million more each year on domestic production and adhering to US theatrical release quotas for five years.

The company will release at least 30 theatrical films in each of the first two years of the agreement and 32 films in each of the following three years, Bonta said. Each year, at least four of those films must be independent productions and at least 20% must be blockbusters.

If Paramount falls below the required annual threshold, it will pay $30 million for each film missed, with much of the money directed towards funds supporting industry workers. The company also agreed not to raise rates charged to cinema operators for three years.

Under the settlement, Paramount will establish a News Editorial Independence Board to help ensure editorial independence at CBS and CNN.

Reuters first reported on Friday that Paramount and the states could settle as soon as the weekend.

Ellison thanked the states and California Governor Gavin Newsom for his support throughout the process.

"Our goal has always been to build a stronger Hollywood — one with more stories told, greater choice for consumers and stronger competition," he said in a statement.

States Challenged Merger

While Trump administration regulators cleared the deal, a coalition of 12 state attorneys general, led by California's Bonta, sued in July to block the merger. They argued that it would reduce competition and create a media behemoth with the power to raise prices for movies and television.

The Writers Guild also sued to stop the deal, arguing that it would reduce pay and worsen working conditions for film and television writers.

The companies said earlier this year that the merger would generate $6 billion in savings through measures including cost cuts that could affect jobs across Hollywood as well as in the CNN and CBS newsrooms. The combined company is expected to carry about $80 billion in debt.

The settlement also helps Paramount avoid a $7 million-a-day "ticking fee" that it would have owed Warner shareholders for each day the deal remained incomplete beyond September 30.

Antitrust regulators in other jurisdictions, including the European Union and Britain, have already cleared the deal.