The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday revived Utah Political Watch publisher Bryan Schott’s First Amendment suit against the Utah Legislature over its press-credential policy, reversing a district court that threw the case out.
A three-judge panel said Schott plausibly alleged he was denied a Capitol press credential because of his viewpoints, not any neutral rule. The court reinstated two of his five claims and sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah for further proceedings.
Schott has covered the Legislature for about 25 years, including at UtahPolicy.com and the Salt Lake Tribune, and received credentials each year he applied through the 2024 session. He launched Utah Political Watch in September 2024 after leaving the Tribune.
Two months later, in November 2024, the Legislature rewrote the credential policy to say “blogs, independent media or other freelance media do not qualify for a credential.” Schott applied in December 2024 and was denied under that language. His appeal failed. He applied again to cover the 2026 session and was denied again.
He sued four legislative officials in January 2025, alleging the media credential policy violates the First and 14th Amendments. The amended complaint raised five claims: as-applied viewpoint discrimination, facial viewpoint discrimination, retaliation, prior restraint, and vagueness. The district court dismissed all five, and he appealed.
The 10th Circuit said the district court erred and that Schott adequately alleged the credentialing system creates a government forum the Legislature must administer in a viewpoint-neutral way.
10th Circuit Court Opinion - Utah Political Watch by Bryan Schott
The panel pointed to several facts he alleged: legislative staffers calling his reporting “unprofessional” and lacking integrity; the policy’s uneven application to other independent or self-edited outlets that still got credentials; and the timing—tightening the rules right after he became an independent journalist.
“We conclude that Schott’s well-pleaded factual allegations are sufficient to show the Legislature plausibly discriminated against him because of his viewpoints,” the opinion said.
The panel also rejected the Legislature’s claim that the denial caused only minimal harm because he could sit in the gallery or watch livestreams of press conferences. That is not the same as having a press badge that lets you ask questions in person.
“The policy itself states that credentialed media enjoy privileges, such as access to ‘some secure areas of the Capitol,’ ‘the press room,’ and to ‘media availabilities and other press events with elected officials. The public has no access to to such areas and events,” the court wrote. “The obvious problem is that Schott cannot ask legislative officials questions without attending press conferences in person.”
The court sent Schott’s two viewpoint-discrimination claims back to the district court to determine whether the policy is viewpoint-based. It upheld the dismissal of his other three claims: retaliation, prior restraint and vagueness.
In a separate concurring opinion, Judge Timothy Tymkovich, who also wrote the panel opinion, said the ban on “independent media” and the requirement that a journalist be part of a “reputable” news organization appear to be viewpoint-based.
“Under this distinction, the policy seemingly permits the government to act as the arbiter of whether a news organization’s speech is reputable or ethical. That, however, would be something the government cannot do,” he wrote.
The case now returns to the district court, where Schott’s viewpoint-discrimination claims will proceed. Lawmakers can ask the 10th Circuit for rehearing within 14 days of judgment.
If you have a news tip that we should investigate, email us at tips@utahpolitics.news or send your tip through our secure online form.
