The Supreme Court declined Monday to intervene on behalf of a New York Times reporter who has been subpoenaed and could face jail time for not identifying a confidential source.
The court turned down requests from reporter James Risen and a host of media organizations, including The Washington Post, that it overturn a lower court’s order and find that reporters are protected by the Constitution from testifying about their sources. The justices offered no reason for turning down the case.
Federal prosecutors want Risen to testify in the case of Jeffrey A. Sterling, a former CIA analyst who they believe gave Risen information for his book “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.” In that 2006 book, Risen detailed classified information about the CIA’s efforts to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.
A district judge said Risen did not have to testify. But a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond later disagreed in a 2 to 1 decision. The majority said that under Supreme Court precedent, the First Amendment does not protect reporters from revealing who supplied them with unauthorized leaks.
Risen, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, has said he will go to prison rather than testify about his sources. “I will continue to fight,” Risen wrote in an e-mail to The Post on Monday.
In response to the Supreme Court action, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said it was “extremely disappointed” and called journalists’ ability to protect confidential sources “an essential tool utilized by a free press in newsgathering for the public trust.”
“The lower court’s ruling sends an undeniable chill through current and future news sources who would want to come forward with information essential to the well-being of the community and the country,” Bruce D. Brown, executive director of the reporters committee, said in the group’s statement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-refuses-to-take-reporters-case-on-revealing-confidential-source/2014/06/02/d704de58-ea54-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.htmlSo much for freedom of the press and since when do whistle-blowers need authorization
