Episode 46: Utah Political Watch, et al. v. Musselman, et al. 

Utah Political Watch, et al. v. Musselman, et al. argued before Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, Senior Judge Michael R. Murphy, and Judge Robert E. Bacharach of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on March 17, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Charles “Chip” Miller (on behalf of Utah Political Watch) and Daniel Vitagliano (on behalf of Utah legislative officials).   

Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: 

Bryan Schott, a journalist with 25 years of experience covering Utah politics, is fighting back after being denied press credentials under a newly revised policy that appears designed to silence independent reporting. Institute for Free Speech attorneys filed suit on behalf of Schott and his outlet, Utah Political Watch (UPW), against Utah legislative officials who denied Schott’s application for press credentials. The denial came after the Utah Legislature changed its credentialing rules in November 2024 to exclude “blogs, independent media outlets or freelance media,” a change made just weeks after Schott inquired about obtaining credentials for the 2025 session.  

Despite receiving press credentials every year they were offered since at least 2013, Schott, a recipient of the National Press Foundation’s Election Journalism Fellowship and Utah’s Best Newspaper Reporter award, was denied access for the 2025 legislative session. The denial followed Schott’s hard-hitting coverage of Senate President Stuart Adams. Schott was blocked from covering key events, including the House GOP’s legislative priorities announcement and the governor’s monthly press conference. Additionally, without credentials, he cannot attend the legislative session itself or daily leadership meetings, participate in Friday media availabilities with the Speaker, or access areas of the Capitol reserved for press coverage. 

Statement of the Issues, from the Appellants’ Opening Brief: 

• Are any of the following allegations sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging First Amendment violations for viewpoint discrimination, retaliation, prior restraint and unconstitutional vagueness?  
  • • A government media credentialing policy that expressly excludes “independent media” from receiving media credentials constitutes viewpoint discrimination against independent voices;  
    • A media credentialing policy that uses subjective and vague terms such as “established reputable news organization,” and “blogs, independent media and other freelance media” affords too much discretion to government officials issuing credentials;  
    • Government officials apply criteria not included in the written credentialing policy, including requiring institutional ownership and editorial control; or,   
    • A media credentialing policy was revised and applied inconsistently to deny credentials and access to a single reporter who had gotten under the skin of elected officials. 
• Should a preliminary injunction issue to prevent the defendants from denying media credentials based on the viewpoint expressed? 

Resources:    

• Appellants’ Opening Brief 
• Appellees’ Response Brief 
• Our Client’s Story blog 
• Institute for Free Speech case page (includes all filings) 

Listen to the argument here:    

The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform.