A judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the White House’s grabbing away of Jim Acosta’s press pass.

CNN sued President Trump and other White House officials on Tuesday over the revocation. Kelly’s ruling was the first legal skirmish in that lawsuit. It has the immediate effect of sending Acosta back to the White House, pending further arguments and a possible trial. The litigation is in its early stages, and a trial could be months in the future.

Kelly, whom Trump appointed to the federal bench last year, handed down his ruling two days after the network and government lawyers argued over whether the president had the power to exclude a reporter from the White House.

Trump will pitch fit about ingratitude and disloyalty of judge in 5, 4, 3, 2…

In his decision, Kelly ruled that Acosta’s First Amendment rights overruled the White House’s right to have orderly news conferences. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied.

Orderly news conferences? How can the White House have orderly news conferences when the guy at the top is Trump? Trump is disorder.

He also agreed with CNN’s argument that the White House did not provide due process. He said the White House’s decision-making was “so shrouded in mystery that the government could not tell me . . . who made the decision.” The White House’s later written arguments for banning Acosta were belated and weren’t sufficient to satisfy due process, Kelly said.

Plus they came after what looked to some observers like entrapment mixed with fraud. Did Trump and his people tell the intern to grab Acosta’s mic? Was the whole thing planned? Were Kushner and other toadies exchanging smirks as Trump called on Acosta?

CNN has argued that the ban on Acosta violated his First Amendment rights because it amounts to “viewpoint discrimination” — that is, the president is punishing him for statements and coverage he didn’t like. The network has also said the action violates Acosta’s Fifth Amendment right to due process because his exclusion follows no written guidelines or rules and has no appeal or review procedures.

CNN had requested “emergency” relief from the judge, arguing that Acosta’s rights were being violated with each passing hour.

Until the White House’s action last week, no reporter credentialed to cover the president had ever had a press pass revoked.

Which has to mean that the idea of it had been taboo, because otherwise it would have happened before.

A government lawyer argued basically “He can if he wants to!” Also that it was because Acosta was so ruuuuude – unlike the exquisitely polite Donald Trump.

Burnham also explained that Trump’s rationale for Acosta’s ban was his “rudeness” at last week’s news conference, in effect arguing that Acosta’s conduct, not his right to free speech, was the relevant issue.

I have to wonder how he could bring himself to argue that, given that the whole thing is available to watch. Trump is actively unpleasant, as he so often is, and Acosta is in fact entirely civil. Other reporters may have a beef with him for hogging the mic, but it’s not Trump’s job to referee that.

Media organizations have been alarmed by the White House’s treatment of Acosta, saying that revoking his “hard pass” to enter the White House is a threat to other journalists who might be similarly banned. Trump has suggested other reporters could face a similar fate if they displease him in some unspecified way. Thirteen news organizations, including The Washington Post and Fox News, said Wednesday they would jointly file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting CNN’s position.

The White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents journalists in negotiations over access to the president, filed its own brief on Thursday that urged the court “to roundly reject the president’s dangerous legal position.” It disputed the government’s claim that the president has “absolute, unbridled discretion to decide who can report from inside the White House.”

During the presidential campaign in 2015 and 2016, Trump banned more than a dozen news organizations from his rallies and public events, including The Washington Post. But he said he wouldn’t do something similar as president. Last week, he went back on that statement.

“Promises kept”? Hmmm?