(The Center Square) – A federal judge in Tacoma is expected to issue a ruling no later than early Tuesday (March 10) in a closely watched case over press credentials for covering the Washington State Legislature. The case was removed from Thurston County Superior Court to federal court on March 2.
The Citizen Action Defense Fund is backing plaintiffs Brandi Kruse, Jonathan Choe and Ari Hoffman, who were denied press credentials in what the suit contends is a violation of the state and federal constitutions.
U.S District Judge David Estudillo will decide whether the press passes will be granted for the final days of the 2026 session, which is scheduled to adjourn on Thursday.
“The process used to award press passes by the defendants clearly violates the federal and state constitutional protections, freedom of the press, and due process,” said CADF Executive Director Jackson Maynard at Monday’s hearing. “My clients are the eyes and ears of the people in the legislative process. Their voices and opinions should not be excluded.”
Jessica Goldman, an attorney with Summit Law Group, argued for the defense that the plaintiff are “opinion” journalists who are not entitled to credentials.
She told the judge that because all three have shown up at rallies and other political events for conservative issues and legislation, they are not independent journalists.
“The plaintiffs here are not just attending an event, which journalists do all the time,” Goldman argued. “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.”
As reported by The Center Square, the Capitol Correspondents Association gave up press credentialing responsibilities in 2025 after The Center Square was initially denied credentials, and Choe and others pushed the issue.
“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,” Goldman continued. “These plaintiffs are actors in the arena.”
Maynard argued that precedent is on their side, as is the Constitution.
“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,” Maynard said. “Their rights to have access to be the eyes and ears for the public should be protected.”
Estudillo indicated a decision could come late Monday or early Tuesday.
Outside the courtroom, The Center Square caught up with Maynard for his take on the arguments.
“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,” Maynard said.
Maynard said a loss at this level would result in an evaluation of options regarding a potential appeal.
“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,” he said. “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.”
