Court refuses case on reporter's privilege
Now what?
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.
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.
I have no opinion on whether reporters should have a federal privilege against disclosing the identity of their sources. Both sides make a compelling argument. On the one hand:
"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.
And on the other:
"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," according to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
But I am curious now to know what happens to Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller. Will they go to jail, or will they relent?