Senate reaffirms decision to deny press pass to Scotusblog

As the day's US supreme court opinions flooded in, a website dedicated to covering the nation's highest court learned of another decision on Monday: the US Senate press gallery had reaffirmed its decision to deny Scotusblog a press pass.

At issue is the fact that the blog's publisher, Tom Goldstein, a founding partner of the law firm Goldstein & Russell, also argues before the supreme court.

"The committee finds that the Scotusblog editorial policy did not go far enough to achieve editorial independence from Mr Goldstein and his law firm," wrote the panel of journalists elected to make decisions about press credentials in a letter made public on its website.

The standing committee of corespondents found that the Scotusblog failed to meet a rule requiring publications to be "editorially independent of any institution, foundation or interest group that lobbies the federal government".

In a blogpost responding to the decision, Goldstein writes: "It seems a shame to erect obstacles to access when organizations like ours share the values and further the goals of journalism. We reach a lot of people. No organization in the nation’s history has devoted nearly the resources we have in covering this important institution."

This decision restricts the blog's access to the Senate press gallery, not the supreme court, which may make it harder for the publication's reporters to cover issues related to the supreme court, such as confirmation hearings or legislative follow-ups to court rulings.

"We wanted the credential in substantial part because we cover supreme court-related matters in the Senate,” Goldstein wrote in a past blogpost.

While Scotusblog is not currently credentialed by the supreme court, it is expected to retain access through temporary arrangements, Goldstein said in an email. Traditionally, Senate credentials have paved the way for court access, however, the court is currently reviewing the its press procedures.

The battle for press accreditation flared up in April when the press gallery denied Scotusblog’s application for a pass, and said it would not renew a credential previously granted to Scotusblog reporter Lyle Denniston. A seasoned reporter who has covered the supreme court for decades, Denniston has a supreme court press pass for himself through a radio station, which he uses to report for Scotusblog.

Scotusblog appealed the decision, and, in May, Denniston and Goldstein made their case before the committee during a 90-minute public appeal hearing. The committee published its decision on Monday, one month after the hearing.

The committee has not explained why Denniston was credentialed last year but refused this year.

The Peabody winning-blog, which is sponsored by Bloomberg Law, has emerged in recent years as an indispensable and credible resource to both court reporters and supreme court watchers. Its decision-day liveblogs are often the first to report news from the court; on Monday, the site reported 10,000 people were watching live.

Scotusblog was started in 2002 by Goldstein and wife Amy Howe, a former litigator who now edits the site, to support their law practice.

But as it grew and became more journalistic in its coverage, Scotusblog established editorial firewalls to separate the site from the law firm. Scotusblog reporters, for example, are not allowed to write about cases that Goldstein's firm is involved in.

But the committee ultimately decided this was not enough. "If Scotusblog were to take additional steps to separate itself from Goldstein & Russell and any other lawyer or law firm who is arguing before the supreme court, we would welcome a new application," the letter said.

Goldstein says this would be a death sentence for the blog. "The simple reality is that I can’t afford to stop practicing law, and if I withdraw as publisher of the blog we lose our sponsorship. Scotusblog then collapses," he writes.

The publication said it intends to appeal the committee’s decision to the Senate rules committee.

Scotusblog's fight for a Senate press pass has tapped into a broader debate about where an online publication with a non-traditional business model fits into the journalistic landscape.

"It should be common ground that its rationale is sweeping and has broad implications for whether non-traditional media is regarded as 'journalism'," Goldstein wrote on Monday.

A May statement from the committee's chairwoman, Siobhan Hughes, a Wall Street Journal correspondent, described the panel as a line of defense between journalists and lobbyists in Washington DC.

"While the media are ever evolving and changing, the need to guard against conflicts of interest remains," she wrote.