Requires reporters to testify when subpoenaed by a grand jury. But so split that lower courts have read as establishing a qualified First Amendment privilege.

5-4 decision (4 written opinions)

Majority (4/Justice White):

• Journalists do not have a First Amendment right to withhold the identify of confidential sources or information from a grand jury.
• Public interest in crime. Better to do something about it than write about it.
• Obligation of everyone to respond to grand jury subpoenas and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation.
• But officials can't harass journalists under the guise of fighting crime.
• First Amendment doesn't protect the average citizen from disclosing information to a grand jury. Reporters are no better than average citizens.
• Congress and the states can fashion their own shield laws, or statutory privilege, to protect journalists from testifying.

Concurring (Justice Powell): Agreed with the outcome, but not the reasoning.

• Invited journalists to file motions requesting hearings on the propriety of subpoenas.
• Reporters shouldn't be asked to identify confidential sources without good cause.
• Case-by-case balancing of freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony

Dissent (Justice Stewart, joined by Brennan, Marshall):

• Would have granted a qualified privilege.
• Reporter's constitutional right to confidential sources stems from broad societal interest in full and free flow of information to the public.
• Otherwise inviting law enforcement to annex journalists as investigative arm.
• Confidential sources are necessary to newsgathering process.
• Disclosing names would lead to self-censorship.

Dissent (Justice Douglas):

• Would have granted an absolute, constitutional right to reporters to refuse to take part in any judicial proceeding.

Return to Media Law Home Page