Supreme Court Won't Hear CIA Leak Case

AP ^ | 06/27/05 | AP

[Pikamax]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago - whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.

The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering.

"Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers.

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Plame's name was first made public in 2003 by columnist Robert Novak, who cited unidentified senior Bush administration officials for the information. The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime and a government investigation is in its second year. No charges have been brought.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, the special counsel handling the probe, told justices that the only unfinished business is testimony from Cooper and Miller.

Cooper reported on Plame, while Miller gathered material for an article about the intelligence officer but never wrote a story.

A federal judge held the reporters in contempt last fall, and an appeals court rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources in the federal criminal proceeding.

Every state but Wyoming recognizes reporters' rights to protect their confidential sources of information, justices were told in a brief filed on behalf of 34 states, and without those privileges "reporters in those states would find their newsgathering abilities compromised, and citizens would find themselves far less able to make informed political, social and economic choices."

But Fitzgerald said in his own filing that the federal government is different. "Local jurisdictions do not have responsibility for investigating crimes implicating national security, and reason and experience strongly counsel against adoption of an absolute reporter's privilege in the federal courts," he said.

In the last journalist source case at the Supreme, the 1972 Branzburg v. Hayes, a divided court ruled against Louisville, Ky., reporter who had written a story about drug trafficking and was called to testify about it. Justices said that requiring journalists to reveal information to grand juries served a "compelling" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment.

That decision has been interpreted differently and clarification is needed because dozens of reporters around the country have been subpoenaed over the past two years, said Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada, representing Time magazine.

The cases are Miller v. United States, 04-1507, and Cooper v. United States, 04-1508.

[Mr. Nobody]

It would seem the normal course for this USSC to not hear the case as it strengthens the governments position.

[bkepley]

I didn't see the decision numbers.

[dead]

Dimwitted morons on the left still think the leak was by somebody working for Cheney or Rove. Reporters for Time and The Times would not for a moment be willing to spend some months in jail to protect the name of a Republican source.

Enjoy prison, clowns.

[Mr. Nobody]

No numbers on denials, is there? I believe only one "justice" provides the denial response.

[dead]

There are no numbers. The decision was made without comment or dissent.

[Dilbert56]

"reporters in those states would find their newsgathering abilities compromised, and citizens would find themselves far less able to make informed political, social and economic choices." (emphasis added)

• How do they know this? Wouldn't you need some proof that this is true before you start creating a special set of privileges for "journalists"?
• There is a trade-off which is conveniently left out: that same anonymity can be used to propagate false information.

[Samurai_Jack]

IT'S THE PLAME GAME!

[Sgt_Schultze]

..."Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers.

Journalists may still promise to maintain the confidentiality of their sources. They apparently were seeking immunity from being held accountable for their actions. If they are willing to go to jail for failing to testify, then their sources will remain confidential.

Imagine the power of journalists to libel with impunity if their "sources" could remain confidential and the reporter were immune from accountability for their reportage.

[Dave S]

What do you want to bet that the President eventually pardons both reporters so that they dont have to do time. Bush is too big a person to want two reporters that cover him jailed because someone within his own administration leaked information to the press (cardinal sin in Bush administration) and then lied to the President and his staff about their culpability in it.

[MizSterious]

Plame ping

[cyncooper]

Thanks--cross link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431554/posts