- The Washington Times - Monday, June 27, 2005


The Supreme Court rejected appeals yesterday from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer’s identity.

The ruling effectively ends the free-speech appeal by Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper and the New York Times’ Judith Miller, who both 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.

Mrs. 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 C. Wilson IV, 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 Mr. Cooper and Miss Miller.

Mr. Cooper reported on Mrs. Plame, while Miss 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.

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.

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.

But Mr. 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 Court, 1972’s Branzburg v. Hayes, a divided court ruled against a 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.

Yesterday, the high court also:

• Ruled 5-4 that an appeals court improperly gave a Tennessee death-row inmate a second chance.

• Ruled 7-2 that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide