Case 1:26-cv-03287-TJK Document 24 Filed 09/24/26
Page 5 of 8Second, Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a tem- porary restraining order. In the D.C. Circuit, it “has long been established that the loss of consti- tutional freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable in- jury.” Mills v. District of Columbia, 571 F.3d 1304, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). When constitutional harm is the basis for irreparable harm, the likelihood of success on the merits overlaps heavily with the irreparable harm inquiry. See id. Thus, because Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on at least one of their constitutional claims, they have also met the irrep- arable harm requirement.
The final two factors, the balance of the equities and the public interest, also favor Plain- tiffs. These two factors “merge when the Government is the opposing party.” Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. FEC, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). As the Court has con- cluded, the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes likely violated their constitutional due process rights, and “enforcement of an unconstitutional law is always contrary to the public interest.” Ka- rem, 960 F.3d at 668 (citation omitted). Moreover, Plaintiffs and the public-have an abiding interest in maintaining the status quo ante given the importance of the free press, which “stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people.” Grosjean v. Am. Press. Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936).
On the other side, Defendants argue that revoking Plaintiffs’ hard passes and excluding them from the White House serves an important national security purpose, citing Defendants’of notice that satisfies Karem for several reasons, but especially given the lack of precedent for applying those laws to reporters. Moreover, just as the record lacks factual support for Defendants’ contention that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes will in fact protect national security (as discussed below), the record also lacks factual support for Defendants’ contention that Plaintiffs violated these statutes, at least at this stage.
5
