Washington state lawmakers prevailed in a lawsuit over press credentials after a federal judge rejected an emergency request by three conservative media figures who sought access to parts of the state Capitol in Olympia.
U.S. District Judge David Estudillo denied the plaintiffs’ bid for a temporary restraining order, finding they had not shown they were likely to succeed on either their free press claims or their due process arguments. The case arose after the Washington House of Representatives declined to issue credentials that would have allowed the three to enter areas off-limits to the general public.
The House said it did not grant the press credentials because the three were not “bona fide journalists,” saying they were participants in the political arena rather than independent observers. The Associated Press reported the lawmakers’ stance in a dispute that has echoed a national debate over who qualifies for the label of journalist as podcast hosts and other user-generated media producers seek legislative access.
The three plaintiffs include Ari Hoffman, host of “The Ari Hoffman Show” on KVI-AM; Brandi Kruse, host of the podcast “unDivided”; and Jonathan Choe, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank. Their lawyer, Jackson Maynard, argued that the House’s credentialing process was handled in a way that violated constitutional protections.
Maynard told Estudillo during a Monday hearing that the process used to deny the press credentials was vague and arbitrarily applied. He also argued that withholding access reflected retaliation because of disagreement with lawmakers’ political views, which he said infringed free speech and free press rights. Maynard said, “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.”
In his ruling, Estudillo said the plaintiffs failed to show they were denied passes because of their political affiliations, which the judge said would raise first-amendment concerns. The judge also said the group did not show the process was arbitrary in a way that would violate due process.
The judge wrote that both sides had legitimate interests at stake but that denying the temporary restraining order was appropriate because the plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success. Estudillo said the House has a “substantial interest in ensuring the reporters it permits to access the House floor meet the credential standards promulgated so the House may ‘debate and pass laws without interruption or lobbying in that space.’”
Maynard said the plaintiffs were continuing the fight. In an email, he said, “We will continue to litigate this case until we either prevail or exercise every viable legal option,” adding that their goal was to obtain the access they believe the constitution guarantees for members of the press.
Jessica Goldman, the House’s lawyer, said she was confident that further litigation would end the same way, with the court concluding the press pass policy complies with the constitution and protects lawmakers’ working space. Goldman said the group was not denied passes because of its viewpoints, but because it consisted of activists for political causes rather than independent monitors.
Goldman also told the court that the plaintiffs were not merely attending events; she said they were the leaders and keynote speakers at the gatherings and that their names and notoriety were tied to efforts to pass laws through the legislature. She said the distinction mattered in how the House applied its rules for floor access.
The dispute drew on guidelines used at the Capitol Correspondents Association, which state that a person must be “a bona fide journalist” and that there must be a line between professional journalism and political or policy work. The Associated Press reported that the association shifted credentialing to the legislature after the three threatened a lawsuit in 2025, and that the Senate ultimately issued passes, but the House later took over the process and denied the requests.
Goldman told the judge that the criteria for granting credentials follow the principle that House floor access should go to independent observers and monitors, not participants with a stake in the proceedings, “no matter their political viewpoints.” The court’s rejection of the emergency request leaves the broader credentialing policy challenge for further litigation.
The Associated Press said lawmakers in other states have also wrestled with how to determine credentials as media models change, including disputes involving press access in Utah and policy changes in the Iowa Senate.