Seattle journalists locked out by WA legislature get no relief in federal court

A federal judge has ruled that Washington state House lawmakers were within their rights to decline press passes to three Seattle-based journalists, all of whom are conservative-leaning and critical of the Democrat-run government. On Monday, US District Court Judge David Estudillo denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would have granted them access to press-only restricted areas to cover the final days of the 2026 legislative session.

The plaintiffs in this case, Ari Hoffman, Brandi Kruse, and Jonathan Choe, filed an emergency lawsuit last week to obtain floor access to the House chamber in Olympia after the Democratic-controlled state House of Representatives declined to issue press credentials on grounds that the journalists have engaged in "political advocacy" and/or work for "think tanks," citing guidelines from the Washington State Capitol Correspondents Association (CCA), a private group of legacy media journalists. Hoffman is a news editor for The Post Millennial and hosts a conservative radio show; Kruse is a former Seattle news reporter who now runs the podcast "UnDivided"; and Choe is a senior fellow for the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank.

The CCA's standards require applicants, who are then approved by the state House, to be "bona fide journalists," meaning there must be a clear distinction between professional journalism and political advocacy work. The lawsuit alleges that the legislature relied on vague and unpublished criteria when denying credentials and that the process allows viewpoint-based discrimination against journalists who do not align with the views of the established press corps.

The journalists, represented by the Citizen Action Defense Fund, argued that the state's denial was politically motivated and violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press, as well as due process violations, and that the denial process was vague and arbitrarily applied. "In the remaining 72 hours of the legislative session, the House will potentially be wrestling with a multibillion-dollar budget and other legislation of great importance," attorney Jackson Maynard told the judge, according to AP. "My clients are the eyes and ears of the people in the legislative process. Their voices and opinions should not be excluded."
 

In his decision, Judge Estudillo stated that the plaintiffs had not shown that their First Amendment rights had been violated or that the procedure was arbitrary, which would have violated their right to due process. "The Court is unable to conclude at this time that these guidelines are unreasonable or not intended to ensure those who obtain press passes are 'professional journalists' employed by 'news organization[s],' which is reasonably related to the goal of establishing a line 'between professional journalism and political or policy work,'" the judge wrote. "Even further, the guidelines identify a clear directive in maintaining an independent press separate from the government, political parties, and interested groups."

Maynard said they remain committed to the fight. The CADF stated: "We strongly disagree with the Court's decision on the injunction motion, and while we are not appealing it, given the short time left in session, we will continue to litigate this case until we either prevail or exercise every viable legal option. Our goal is to get our clients the access they are entitled to by the Constitution as members of the press."

Jessica Goldman, attorney for the House, told the AP that "they were confident any further litigation would reach the same conclusion." Goldman told the Court that the journalists have not been acting as independent monitors, but rather activists who have engaged in political causes. She said they have been leaders and keynote speakers at conservative events and "have attached their names and their fame and notoriety to trying to get these....laws passed by the legislature."