Three journalists are waiting on a federal judge to decide whether Washington State's legislature can lock them out of covering its final days in session, after their applications for press credentials were denied in what their attorneys call a clear violation of the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge David Estudillo indicated a decision could come as early as late Monday or early Tuesday, with the 2026 legislative session scheduled to adjourn Thursday. The ruling will determine whether plaintiffs Brandi Kruse, Jonathan Choe, and Ari Hoffman receive emergency press passes in time to cover the session's conclusion.
The case, brought by the Citizen Action Defense Fund on behalf of the three journalists, was removed from Thurston County Superior Court to federal court on March 2. At its core is a question that should trouble anyone who takes press freedom seriously: Does the government get to decide which journalists are real enough to watch it work?
The defense, represented by attorney Jessica Goldman of Summit Law Group, argued that the plaintiffs are not independent journalists but political participants who don't deserve credentials. Goldman contended that the three have crossed a line from reporting to activism, Just the News reported.
"The plaintiffs here are not just attending an event, which journalists do all the time. These plaintiffs did way more than that, they were the leaders of these events. They were the keynote speakers … they have attached their fame and notoriety to trying to get these legislative … these laws passed by the legislature."
Goldman called the plaintiffs "actors in the arena" and argued that press independence requires separation from political parties and constituent groups. She further argued:
"The press must be independent from the government and from political party, their constituent groups, and the many organizations which have a stake in legislative proceedings."
It's a tidy argument, right up until you think about it for more than ten seconds.
The premise of Goldman's argument is that journalists who hold opinions, attend rallies, or advocate for causes forfeit their right to cover the government. If that standard were applied consistently, half the press galleries in America would be empty by Friday.
Editorial journalism is not a loophole. It is a tradition older than the Republic. The founders who wrote the First Amendment were themselves pamphleteers, polemicists, and partisans. The idea that "opinion" journalism disqualifies someone from covering government proceedings would have baffled every signer of the Constitution.
CADF Executive Director Jackson Maynard made exactly this point at Monday's hearing:
"My clients are allowed to take sides. They engage in political editorial work, and they are allowed to do that. Freedom of the press does not pass by the founders solely to protect speech that favored the government."
That last line deserves to sit with you. The freedom of the press was designed precisely to protect coverage the government doesn't like. The moment credentialing becomes a tool for filtering out unfriendly voices, it stops being an administrative process and becomes a gatekeeping operation.
This fight didn't materialize out of nowhere. In 2025, the Capitol Correspondents Association gave up press credentialing responsibilities after The Center Square was initially denied credentials, and Choe and others pushed the issue. That history matters. It suggests a pattern: journalists who don't fit a particular ideological mold encounter friction when they try to cover state government.
When the entity responsible for credentialing walks away from the job rather than apply its standards fairly, that tells you something about those standards.
Whatever body now handles press credentials for the Washington State Legislature (the source material does not identify the current credentialing authority) denied all three plaintiffs. The suit contends this denial violates both federal and state constitutional protections for freedom of the press and due process.
Maynard framed the stakes plainly outside the courtroom:
"I think this case is really just about press freedom and whether or not the government has an appropriate goal in deciding who gets access to them to be able to do their jobs and make sure this legislative process is transparent."
The phrase Maynard kept returning to is worth noting. He called his clients "the eyes and ears of the people in the legislative process." That framing matters because it redirects the conversation away from the journalists themselves and toward the public they serve.
When a credential is denied, it isn't just the reporter who loses access. It's every reader, viewer, and listener who relies on that reporter's coverage. The question isn't whether Kruse, Choe, and Hoffman deserve to be in the building. It's whether the people who follow their work deserve to know what's happening inside it.
"There really should be a kaleidoscope of different perspectives. You know, opinions that are critical of policy, and maybe some there are supportive and some that are neutral so that people can get the truth."
Maynard's point here is almost disarmingly reasonable. A healthy press corps includes voices that challenge the government, voices that support it, and voices that try to play it straight. Filtering for only one type isn't neutrality. It's curation.
The timing of this case adds urgency that no appeal can fix. The 2026 session adjourns on Thursday. If Judge Estudillo rules against the plaintiffs or simply takes too long, the question becomes moot for this session. The journalists miss the coverage. The public misses the reporting. And the precedent, or lack of one, carries forward.
Maynard acknowledged the compressed timeline but signaled the fight won't end with this session:
"We don't have a lot of time before the end of session, but we will evaluate the court's order in light of the importance of this issue."
That's the right posture. Win or lose this week, the underlying constitutional question isn't going anywhere. If a state government can deny press credentials based on a journalist's viewpoint, every opinion writer, editorial board member, and commentator in America should be paying attention.
The First Amendment doesn't protect only the reporters the government finds convenient. It was written for the inconvenient ones.
