Three reporters who provide conservative commentary on Washington state issues are suing the state House after that chamber rejected their applications for floor press passes. The plaintiffs argue their First Amendment free press rights and their rights to due process were violated.
Brandi Kruse, Ari Hoffman and Jonathan Choe each provide a mix of reporting and conservative commentary on social media as well as for print, digital, broadcast and radio outlets.
As the 2026 Washington state legislative session got underway, each was denied a press pass by the state House before appealing and being denied again, in each case with the House chief clerk citing the Washington State Capitol Correspondents Association guidelines.
In rejection letters cited in the lawsuit, Kruse and Hoffman each were told that their recent “public policy development and advocacy” disqualified them from getting press passes based on the correspondent’s association guidelines. Choe was told he was rejected in part because the organization he reports for, the Discovery Institute, is a think tank, which also runs afoul of those guidelines.
The plaintiffs are represented by Citizen Action Defense Fund, a civil rights legal group. The fund’s executive director Jackson Maynard said his clients were denied over their views.
“It’s interesting that only journalists that appear to be asking questions that are critical of members of the House of Representatives seem to be excluded here,” Maynard said. “I think there’s certainly a chilling effect that should be concerning to any member of the press and how these guidelines are being applied.”
Maynard argued that, if public policy development and advocacy are defined broadly enough to include what Kruse and Hoffman do, then that would also preclude reporters for outlets that advocate on issues such as bills that fund local journalism.
“I think the troubling thing is the idea that my clients could not similarly opine on initiatives or other legislation or other acts of the legislature,” Maynard.
In the letters rejecting each reporter’s appeal, Washington House Chief Clerk Bernard Dean said the House, in part, “looks to the Capitol Correspondents’ Association… to make recommendations regarding whether a press pass applicant is a bona fide journalist or not.”
Washington State Capitol Correspondents Association guidelines
While guidelines don’t define a “bona fide journalist,” they do provide a list of criteria, including that “reporting or shooting” is the press pool applicants “primary job and that job is the source of most” of their income; the credential-seeker works for a news organization that isn’t part of a larger non-news organization; and that the applicant isn’t currently or may become “engaged in campaigns, lobbying, or the development of public policy.”
Without clear guidelines, Maynard argued that the House is applying the rules unfairly for his clients, violating their due process and failing to rise to the level of viewpoint neutrality required to be consistent with case law surrounding the First Amendment.
Michael Cecil, an assistant professor of law at Gonzaga University, agree that these guidelines are vague, and he believes they might not be sufficient to encompass journalism in the 21st Century.
“I would suggest the guidelines are not as specific as they should be in demarcating the grounds between party affiliation, between those that advocate for policy,” Cecil said. “They’re not as specific in identifying, for example, who a bona fide journalist is.”
It’s that absence of specific guidelines, Cecil argued, that make the House’s policy vulnerable to being challenged.
“It’s very difficult for if you have an absence of guidelines to then enforce viewpoint neutrality and content neutrality,” Cecil said.
In a statement, Dean reaffirmed his position that the guidelines are viewpoint neutral and said they’re similar to other legislative bodies. In response to a letter from Republican U.S. Representatives Dan Newhouse and Michael Baumgartner critical of the denial of passes for Kruse, Choe and Hoffman, Dean argued that the plaintiffs in this case likely wouldn’t qualify for press passes to cover the U.S. House — the chamber in which Newhouse and Baumgartner serve — either.
Those rules, which are viewable on the House’s website, require press pass applicants be “bona fide resident correspondents” who don’t engage in “any lobbying, promotion, advertising, or publicity activity intended to influence legislation or any other action of the Congress.”
“You may wish to look into your own practices at the U.S. House of Representatives before you seek to influence the application of our long-standing credentialing guidelines,” Dean said.
The guidelines aren’t new, but the way in which they’re being enforced is. Partway through the 2025 legislative session, Kruse and Choe sent a letter to the Washington State Capitol Correspondents Association’s Jerry Cornfield threatening legal action if they didn’t receive press passes.
Cornfield and the association relinquished the responsibility for enforcing the press pass guidelines to the House. Daniel Walters of Investigate West reported that the association made the choice to pass off that responsibility over concerns that it wasn’t prepared to fight litigation.
The challenge to define a journalist in Olympia and across the country is the product of a changing media landscape.
“At the core of journalism is the pursuit of truth and the ability to limit bias in reporting and to inform the citizenry,” Cecil said. “The big question is in the 21st century, these kinds of efforts have disaggregated as the internet and podcasts and social media have become so prominent.”
The correspondents association guidelines specifically reference how a previous version of the rules had to be changed because it required press pass applicants to work for a print, TV or radio outlet, which excluded reporters for online publications.
Cecil noted that medium isn’t the only thing that has changed in the past few decades. Many non-traditional sources of news also tend to share political opinions on issues, something old media often shied away from.
Although it may be more accepted to share opinions alongside journalism now than it was before, Cecil argued that there’s a line that must be drawn.
“I’m not suggesting it’s an easy calculation, but there’s a very fine line between journalism and propaganda,” Cecil said.
He conceded that the word propaganda is thrown around with perhaps too broad a brush, but when defined narrowly as manipulating information for a political agenda, Cecil said it’s something a good press pass policy could seek to filter out.
“There’s nothing wrong with someone taking a political stance on an issue,” Cecil said. “There’s nothing wrong with someone exercising their freedom of speech and there’s nothing wrong with someone reporting on the facts of the day in the halls of power as they see fit. But I do think there is a distinction between journalism and its ethical foundations and how it’s thought of in our mainstream culture, and propaganda as a tool for advancing a political agenda.”
Drawing that distinction is the self-professed purpose of the correspondents association guidelines.
“It is important that a line be established between professional journalism and political or policy work,” the guidelines read. “This is the spirit in which the Legislature has offered access: The press should act as an independent observer and monitor of the proceedings, not an involved party.”
Maynard strongly disagreed with any notion that his clients’ work is ideological, let alone propaganda. He argued their perspective is necessary in the halls of power because they’re distinctly independent, in contrast to establishment media.
“Giving more voices, especially the independent journalists and independent media, which is the direction that industry is heading, is better for democracy, it’s better for the press and it’s better for freedom and liberty,” Maynard said.
Although Maynard dismissed any notion that his clients come from an “ideological bend,” he did concede they share opinions on political issues in their work.
“I think they certainly have, you know, political editorial opinions that they express in the same way that the Seattle Times has an editorial page,” Maynard said.
The guidelines seem to suggest that a member of the Seattle Times editorial page wouldn’t qualify for a press pass. But they don’t preclude reporters who work for organizations with editorial sections, but rather the individual engaged in public policy advocacy. The lawsuit didn’t provide an example of a Seattle Times or any other editorial board member gaining a press pass.
Cecil suggested the House would be on better legal and philosophical footing if it approved press passes on a guidelines built up from the foundational tenants of journalism.
“You care about the ethical foundations of journalists as seeking truth and trying to mitigate bias and provide a full accounting of the facts in an effort to inform the citizenry,” Cecil said. “The journalist is the fourth branch in popular culture because it checks government power. And so it’s important everyone has their own decisions and how they report, but every journalist must, in some sense, adhere to those principles.”
Cecil said the plaintiffs in this case might have a winning legal argument, but he stressed that its ruling should be cautious.
“I would caution it or at least recommend it not pigeonhole the legislature and hamstring its ability to effectuate a policy that reflects the balance of First Amendment rights and the legislature’s legitimate purpose in ensuring that journalists’ access has guidelines and draws a line between the journalist and the carte blanche agitator and activist,” Cecil said.
Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, defining a journalist will remain a difficult task for government and non-government actors alike.
“It’s a delicate dance, and nothing’s perfect,” Cecil said. “Messiness is the rule, not the exception, but these are some of the modern things we have to grapple with.”
