Branzburg v. Hayes

Last updated

Branzburg v. Hayes
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 23, 1972
Decided June 29, 1972
Full case nameBranzburg v. John P. Hayes, Judge, etc., et al.;
In the Matter of Paul Pappas;
United States v. Earl Caldwell
Citations408 U.S. 665 ( more )
92 S. Ct. 2646; 33 L. Ed. 2d 626; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 132; 24 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 2125; 1 Media L. Rep. 2617
Case history
Prior
Holding
The First Amendment's protection of press freedom does not give the reporter's privilege in court.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist
ConcurrencePowell
DissentDouglas
DissentStewart, joined by Brennan, Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; Ky. Rev. Stat. 421.100 (1962)

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court invalidating the use of the First Amendment as a defense for reporters summoned to testify before a grand jury. The case was argued February 23, 1972, and decided June 29 of the same year. [1] The reporters lost their case by a vote of 5–4. This case is cited for the rule that in federal courts, a reporter may not generally avoid testifying in a criminal grand jury, and is one of a limited number of cases [2] [3] in which the U.S. Supreme Court has considered the use of reporters' privilege.

Contents

Facts

Paul Branzburg of The (Louisville) Courier-Journal , in the course of his reporting duties, witnessed people manufacturing and using hashish. He wrote two articles concerning drug use in Kentucky. The first featured unidentified hands holding hashish, while the second included marijuana users as sources. These sources requested not to be identified. Both of the articles were brought to attention of law-enforcement personnel. Branzburg was subpoenaed before a grand jury for both of the articles. He was ordered to name his sources.

Earl Caldwell, a reporter for The New York Times , conducted extensive interviews with the leaders of The Black Panthers, and Paul Pappas, a Massachusetts television reporter, who also reported on The Black Panthers, spending several hours in their headquarters were similarly subpoenaed around the same time as was Paul Branzburg.

All three reporters were called to testify before separate grand juries about illegal actions they might have witnessed. They refused, citing a privilege under the Press Clause, and were held in contempt.

Decision

In a fiercely-split decision, the Court ruled 5–4 against the existence of reportorial privilege in the Press Clause of the First Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White declared that the petitioners were asking the Court "to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do." White acknowledged the argument that refusing to recognize such a privilege would undermine the ability of the press to gather news, but wrote that "from the beginning of the country the press has operated without constitutional protection for press informants, and the press has flourished."

He did not overlook the importance of a free press, however, and he established a test, citing Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., for deciding whether a reporter can be compelled to testify before a grand jury. For such a subpoena to have merit, the government must "convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest."

Complicating matters was Justice Lewis F. Powell's concurrence. While he sided with the majority, Powell emphasized the "limited nature" of the decision when he stated:

The asserted claim to privilege should be judged on its facts by the striking of a proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct. The balance of these vital constitutional and societal interests on a case-by-case basis accords with the tried and traditional way of adjudicating such questions.

A few days after oral argument, and before writing his concurrence, Powell prepared handwritten notes of the court's private conference to decide the disposition of the appeal. He stated in those notes:

I will make clear in an opinion... that there is a privilege analogous to an evidentiary one, which courts should recognize and apply on case by case to protect confidential information.... My vote turned on my conclusion... that we should not establish a constitutional privilege. (emphasis in original notes) [4]

Subsequent history

Powell's opinion has been interpreted by several lower courts as an indication that reportorial privilege exists but was simply not warranted in the specific case of Branzburg.

In Zerilli v. Smith [5] the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that the reporter's privilege existed and that its application depended on two factors: (1) that the information sought was crucial to a litigant's case and (2) that the information could not be acquired from any other source.

However, in 2003 in McKevitt v. Pallasch, [6] Judge Posner reaffirmed the majority's opinion in Branzburg in a case concerning a refusal to stay an order, in a terrorism case in Ireland, to subpoena recordings of a key witness possessed by a group of journalists. Posner used the case-by-case balancing test envisioned by Justice Powell, writing:

The federal interest in cooperating in the criminal proceedings of friendly foreign nations is obvious; and it is likewise obvious that newsgathering and reporting activities of the press are inhibited when a reporter cannot assure a confidential source of confidentiality. Yet that was Branzburg and it is evident from the result in that case that the interest of the press in maintaining the confidentiality of sources is not absolute. There is no conceivable interest in confidentiality in the present case.

In July 2004, Branzburg was cited as precedent by United States District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan in a memorandum opinion denying a motion to quash two grand jury subpoenas issued to reporters. NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper challenged the subpoenas issued in connection with the leak of the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame, citing their First Amendment rights as reason not to reveal their confidential sources. In the opinion, Hogan wrote:

Because this Court holds that the U.S. Supreme Court unequivocally rejected any reporter’s privilege rooted in the First Amendment or common law in the context of a grand jury acting in good faith, this Court denies the motions to quash.

Civil cases, as opposed to criminal cases, have been held not to come under the Branzburg test. [7]

In 2007, the New York Times published Justice Powell's notes of the court's private conference on a form that looks like a scorecard. [8] [9] The Times purports that Justice Powell wrote the following: [9]

I will make clear in an opinion – unless the court's opinion is clear – that there is a privilege analogous to an evidentiary one, which courts should recognize and apply on case by case to protect confidential information. My vote turned on my conclusion – after hearing arguments of counsel and re-reading principal briefs – that we should not establish a constitutional privilege. If we did this, the problems that would flow from it would be difficult to foresee: e.g., applying a privilege of const. dimensions – to grand jurys, petite juries, congressional committees, etc... And who are "newsmen" – how to define?

Quotes

Persuading the Court to grant First Amendment protection to journalists regarding their sources was obviously going to be a hard sell. Notwithstanding the strong policy arguments in favor of establishing this privilege and the serious harm that would be caused by its absence, no such protection had ever been held to exist. Not only was the concept that the judicial system was entitled to 'every man's evidence' itself deeply rooted in the Constitution, but merely determining the scope of the privilege (when would it apply?) and identifying who would receive it (only regularly employed journalists? freelancers? anyone?) were difficult matters at best.--Floyd Abrams [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>United States v. Nixon</i> 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case ordering President Nixon to release all subpoenaed materials

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously ordered President Richard Nixon to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials related to the Watergate scandal to a federal district court. Decided on July 24, 1974, the ruling was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal, amidst an ongoing process to impeach Richard Nixon. United States v. Nixon is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing the information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its area of constitutional activity.

A shield law is legislation designed to protect reporters' privilege. This privilege involves the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to the information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process. Currently, the U.S. federal government has not enacted any national shield laws, but most of the 50 states do have shield laws or other protections for reporters in place.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David B. Sentelle</span> American judge

David Bryan Sentelle is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He previously was a U.S. district judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina from 1985 to 1987.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Goodale</span> American lawyer

James C. Goodale was the vice president and general counsel for The New York Times and, later, the Times' vice chairman.

Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada co-authored the book Game of Shadows while they were reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle. For their investigative work in the field of steroids, Williams and Fainaru-Wada were given the 2004 George Polk Award.

Reporter's privilege in the United States, is a "reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources." It may be described in the US as the qualified (limited) First Amendment or statutory right many jurisdictions have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery.

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution. The clause states that "The Senators and Representatives" of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the death of an attorney's client does not terminate attorney–client privilege with respect to records of confidential communications between the attorney and the client.

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted on various tax-related charges, and mail and wire fraud charges, based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Supreme Court has, since 1976, applied the so-called "act-of-production doctrine". Under this doctrine, a person can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against the production of documents only where the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by a less-than-unanimous verdict in a felony criminal case. The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice White, affirmed the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Although federal law requires federal juries to reach criminal verdicts unanimously, the Court held Oregon's practice did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and so allowed it to continue. In Johnson v. Louisiana, a case decided on the same day, the Court held that Louisiana's similar practice of allowing criminal convictions by a jury vote of 9–3 did not violate due process or equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

<i>Zurcher v. Stanford Daily</i> 1978 United States Supreme Court case

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case from 1978 in which The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University, was searched by police who had suspected the paper to be in possession of photographs of a demonstration that took place at the university's hospital in April 1971. The Stanford Daily filed a suit claiming that under the protection of the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, the warrants were unconstitutional and that the searches should have fallen under the context of subpoenas. The Supreme Court ruled against The Stanford Daily; however, Congress later passed the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which provides additional protections against searches and seizures to the press and individuals who disseminate information to the public, unless the individual is suspected of a crime or a life-threatening situation is present.

Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled on the issue of whether the government's grant of immunity from prosecution can compel a witness to testify over an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In a 5-2 decision, the Court held that the government can overcome a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege by granting a witness "use and derivative use" immunity in exchange for his testimony.

<i>Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.</i> Case in the New Hampshire Supreme Court

The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. is a New Hampshire Supreme Court case in which Mortgage Specialists, a mortgage lender, sought to obtain the identity of an anonymous source who provided Implode-Explode Heavy Industries (Implode), a website monitoring risky lenders, with a confidential document detailing Mortgage Specialists' loan practices. Mortgage Specialists also sought to prohibit the republication of the document and learn the identity of an anonymous individual who allegedly defamed Mortgage Specialists on Implode's website. Mortgage Specialists disputed Implode's status as a news organization, claiming that it should not be afforded the rights of a news organization under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Part I, Article 22 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case. However, the Court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice.

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906), was a major United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established the power of a federal grand jury engaged in an investigation into corporate malfeasance to require the corporation in question to surrender its records.

United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court that held that bank records are not subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case, along with Smith v. Maryland, established the principle of the third-party doctrine in relation to privacy rights.

The Journal Opinion is a weekly newspaper based in Bradford in the U.S. state of Vermont. It was formed in 1978 through the unification of the Journal of Woodsville, New Hampshire and the United Opinion of Bradford by Robert "Bob" Powell who owned both papers. The Bradford Journal-Opinion is published weekly on Wednesdays and it covers the areas of Orange County, Vermont and Grafton County, New Hampshire. In 2022, the paper had a print circulation of 2,500, and had 550 paying customers for its digital edition.

References

  1. ↑ Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).
  2. ↑ Branzburg v. Hayes. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 9, 2022, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-85
  3. ↑ United States v. Caldwell. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 9, 2022, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-57
  4. ↑ Branzburg v. Hayes – Journalists – Supreme Court – Confidential Sources – New York Times
  5. ↑ Zerilli v. Smith, 656F.2d705 ( D.C. Cir. 1981).
  6. ↑ McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339F.3d530 ( 7th Cir. 2003).
  7. ↑ Carey v. Hume, 492 F.2d 631, 636 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. dismissed, 417 U.S. 938(1974).
  8. ↑ Liptak, Adam (October 7, 2007). "A Justice's Scribbles on Journalists' Rights". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 12, 2019. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
  9. 1 2 Liptak, Adam (June 3, 2014). "Image of Justice Powell's notes of the court's private conference on a form that looks like a scorecard as part of the New York Times article A Justice's Scribbles on Journalists' Rights". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 3, 2014. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
  10. ↑ Floyd Abrams, Speaking Freely , published by Viking Press (2005), p. 3.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.