Shield laws in the United States

Last updated

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.

Contents

More generally the term "shield law" is applied to laws protecting people in one state from prosecution by another state for providing services illegal there, specifically for providing medications causing abortion.

Definition

A shield law is a law that gives reporters protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in state court. There is no federal shield law and state shield laws vary in scope. In general however, a shield law aims to provide the protection of: "a reporter cannot be forced to reveal his or her source".[ citation needed ] Thus, a shield law provides a privilege to a reporter pursuant to which the reporter cannot be forced by subpoena or other court order to testify about information contained in a news story and/or the source of that information. Several shield laws additionally provide protection for the reporter even if the source or information is revealed during the dissemination of the news story, that is whether or not the source or information is confidential. Depending on the jurisdiction, the privilege may be total or qualified, and it may also apply to other persons involved in the news-gathering and dissemination process as well, such as an editor or a publisher. However, shield laws do not ensure absolute protection. [1]

Origins

The issue of whether or not journalists can be subpoenaed and forced to reveal confidential information arose in 1972 with the United States Supreme Court case Branzburg v. Hayes . Paul Branzburg was a reporter for The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky and wrote an article about the drug hashish. In creating the article, he came in contact with two local citizens who had created and used the drug. Because their activity was illegal, Branzburg promised the two individuals that he would not reveal their identities. After the article was published, Branzburg was subpoenaed by a local grand jury and ordered to reveal the identity of his sources. Branzburg refused and cited the provisions for freedom of the press from the First Amendment of the Constitution, in his defense.

The Supreme Court decided in a five to four decision that the press did not have a Constitutional right of protection from revealing confidential information in court. The court acknowledged, however, that the government must "convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest." [2] While this ruling did not set a precedent for journalistic rights in court, it did define a more stringent set of requirements for when a journalist could be subpoenaed in court.

This ruling was limited in nature, did not set a clear federal precedent regarding journalistic privileges from revealing confidential information, and thus has been interpreted and cited differently by courts over the years. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, for instance, has gleaned a qualified First Amendment privilege from the Branzburg decision. In Riley v. City of Chester, the Court held that a reporter's right to protect his sources from disclosure could be overcome by a party who, by a preponderance of the evidence, demonstrated that he has made an effort to obtain the information elsewhere, that the only access to the information sought is through the journalist and his or her source, and that the information sought is crucial to the case. 612 F.2d 708 (3rd Cir. 1979). [3]

State laws

States differ on their approach to protecting reporter's privilege. As of 2018, 49 states and the District of Columbia offer some form of protections [4] Forty states (plus D.C.) have passed shield laws. [5] These laws vary from state to state. Some protections apply to civil but not to criminal proceedings. Other laws protect journalists from revealing confidential sources, but not other information. Many states have also established court precedents which provide protection to journalists, usually based on constitutional arguments. Only Wyoming lacks both legislation and judicial precedent to protect reporter's privilege. [5]

Current protections for reporter's privilege in each state. [5]
StateShield lawCourt-recognized privilege
AlabamaYesYes
AlaskaYesYes
ArizonaYesYes
ArkansasYesYes
California YesYes
ColoradoYesNo
ConnecticutYesYes
District of ColumbiaYesNo
DelawareYesYes
FloridaYesYes
GeorgiaYesYes
HawaiiYesYes
IdahoNoYes
IllinoisYesYes
IndianaYesYes
IowaNoYes
KansasYesYes
KentuckyYesNo
LouisianaYesYes
MaineYesYes
MarylandYesNo
MassachusettsNoYes
MichiganYesNo
MinnesotaYesYes
MississippiNoYes
MissouriNoYes
MontanaYesNo
NebraskaYesNo
NevadaYesNo
New HampshireNoYes
New JerseyYesNo
New MexicoYesNo
New YorkYesYes
North CarolinaYesYes
North DakotaYesNo
OhioYesYes
OklahomaYesYes
OregonYesNo
PennsylvaniaYesYes
Rhode IslandYesNo
South CarolinaYesYes
South DakotaNoYes
TennesseeYesNo
TexasYesYes
UtahYesYes
VermontYesYes
VirginiaYesYes
WashingtonYesYes
West VirginiaYesYes
WisconsinYesYes
WyomingNoNo

Current issues

Proponents of shield laws argue that they ensure that news gatherers may do their jobs to their fullest ability and that they help avoid a dichotomy between state laws and journalistic ethics, but the differences between states' laws has raised questions regarding which laws apply where in regard to national reporting. Proponents argue that a federal shield law should exist to eliminate contradictions between state laws.

Opponents argue that shield laws afford extra privileges to journalists and that no citizen should be able to ignore a court ordered subpoena. Opponents also cite problems with defining who is considered a journalist or news gatherer and who is not, and note that if journalists get special protection from the government, then they are getting special journalistic benefits from the government instead of acting in complete independence. Some opponents also argue that journalists are often forced to testify by federal courts only in cases where a federal shield law likely would not protect them anyway. Finally, the federal government may not have constitutional right to enforce a shield law on state courts.

Many journalists, however, are subpoenaed to testify in criminal and civil cases for coverage of a variety of matters that do not involve questions of national security. [6] In recent years, there have been bills for federal shield laws in the United States Congress; however, none of these bills have passed the Senate. A primary objection to recent efforts to pass a federal shield law has been concern about leaks of classified information, particularly given the modern potential of such leaks to be published globally on the Internet by non-traditional recipients, such as WikiLeaks, who might claim to be "journalists" under an unqualified shield law. [7]

Sometimes, the press is not even immune from its sources, such as when the source wishes to remain anonymous and the journalist wishes to disclose it. Such was the case in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1991). [8] The Supreme Court upheld that a source may have a right to confidentiality if an agreement was made with the reporter. Unfortunately, the bigger issue of source disclosure gets even more confusing, since the Cohen and Branzburg decisions could allow for the possibility of a journalist being subpoenaed by a court to disclose the name of a source, and being sued by a source under promissory estoppel laws for that disclosure. The current laws of the land, and the gray areas of forecasting potential consequences of publishing a story with confidential sources places the press in a very precarious situation. The current shield laws in some states give the press somewhat of an upper hand. However, since federal law does not recognize reportorial privilege in most cases, it is understandable how the press might feel muzzled.

The shield law privilege may also be waived by a reporter, as the New Jersey Supreme Court recently found in the case of In re Michael G. Venezia. [9] In that case, a New Jersey newspaper published an article containing defamatory statements about the plaintiff. The article attributed the statements to a source who was identified by name in the article; the source later denied making the defamatory statements. The plaintiff filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper, the reporter and the alleged source of the defamatory statements. When the plaintiff sought to question the newspaper reporter about the article, the reporter and his newspaper refused, claiming protection under New Jersey's shield law. [10] It was discovered, however, that the reporter had already given a statement under oath concerning the article—and, most important, the alleged source of the statement and exactly what that source said—to a local county prosecutor's office. The reporter also talked about his source and what the source said with a local municipal attorney. The Venezia court unanimously held that, while New Jersey has arguably the most protective shield law in the United States, a reporter waives the privilege when he talks about his sources and information outside of the newsgathering process, as did the reporter in Venezia. The Venezia court stated: "The privilege holder is not permitted to step from behind the shield as he pleases, sallying forth one moment to make a disclosure to one person and then to seek the shield's protection from having to repeat the same disclosure to another person. A reporter cannot play peek-a-boo with the privilege." Thus, the Venezia court ordered that the reporter must submit to the plaintiff's deposition request. Venezia is highly significant because it marks the first time that a reporter has ever been found to have waived the privilege under New Jersey's current shield law, and because it explores the issue of what is or is not a "newsgathering activity," and, thus, what activities are subject to protection under the law.

Currently, courts are struggling to define the standards for when shield laws should apply to non-traditional media outlets, particularly in the context of blogs and Internet publishing. In Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox , the United States District Court for the District of Oregon found that to qualify as a reporter, a standard of professionalism must be met, including but not limited to being associated with a traditional news print or television media outlet or obtaining a journalism degree. A subsequent opinion in the same case clarified that these were examples and not requirements; bloggers could qualify, and the denial of media status in the Cox case appears to have been largely motivated by the defendant reportedly offering to remove accusations for a substantial fee. Conversely, in The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. the New Hampshire Supreme Court adopted a much broader definition of media that applies to blogs and website curators, reiterating that "freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right which is not confined to newspapers and periodicals." [11]

In July 2013 the White House was pushing for a federal media shield law named the Free Flow of Information Act [12] authored by U.S. Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham. Under the bill, the scope of protection for reporters would vary according to whether it was a civil case, an ordinary criminal case or a national security case. The greatest protection would be given to civil cases, in which litigants seeking to force reporters to testify or trying to obtain their calling information would be required to show why their need for the information outweighed the public's interest in unfettered news gathering. Ordinary criminal cases would work in a similar fashion, except the burden would be on the reporter seeking to quash the subpoena to show by a "clear and convincing" standard that the public interest in the free flow of information should prevail over the needs of law enforcement. Cases involving the disclosure of classified information would be more heavily tilted toward the government. Judges could not quash a subpoena through a balancing test if prosecutors presented facts showing that the information sought might help prevent a terrorist attack or other acts likely to harm national security. The legislation would create a presumption that when the government is seeking calling records from a telephone carrier, the news organization would be notified ahead of time, allowing it to fight the subpoena in court. But the bill would also allow the government to seek a 45- to 90-day delay in notification if a court determines that such notice would threaten the integrity of the investigation. [13] The legislation would also include an exception where journalists could be subpoenaed if it means national security is at risk.[ citation needed ]

In recent years, a larger effort by journalists to press for federal shield laws formed following the Plame affair, in which reporters who released the name of Valerie Plame were asked who their sources were. One of the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times , was jailed for 85 days in 2005 for refusing to disclose her source in the government probe.

There is also a question about whether or not journalists should be exempt from national security laws. [14]

Shield laws for medical practitioners

In 2023 a paper was published in the Columbia Law Review about ways in which shield laws could protect medical practitioners providing abortion who treated patients in US states that prohibited abortion. [15] Following publication of the paper, several states passed shield laws for medical practitioners. As of July 2023 fifteen states had such shield laws, and five had telemedicine provisions, specifically protecting a provider who prescribed and mailed abortion pills to a patient in a state where abortion was banned. [16] From 18 June 2023 Aid Access mailed medication to patients throughout the US with providers licensed in the five states with telemedicine provisions, with no need to ship from other countries as had been necessary before. It was expected that legal battles would follow as the shield laws were tested in court. Patients themselves were not protected by the shield laws, and remained subject to prosecution for self-managing abortions. [16]

See also

Notes

  1. Graber, Doris A. Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, DC: CQ, 2009. Print.
  2. "Branzburg v. Hayes" on the Legal Information Institute website of Cornell University Law School
  3. "Riley v. Chester - AltLaw". Archived from the original on 2008-10-08.
  4. Rozell, Mark J., and Jeremy D. Mayer. 2008. Media Power Media Politics. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pg 330.
  5. 1 2 3 "State-by-State Guide to the Reporter's Privilege for Student Media". SPLC.org. Student Press Law Center. 2010. Retrieved January 2, 2012.
  6. Jones, RonNell Andersen. "Avalanche or Undue Alarm? An Empirical Study of Subpoenas Received by the News Media", 93 MINN. L. REV. 585, 639–40 (2008).
  7. Reiss, W. Cory. "Crime That Plays: Shaping a Reporter's Shield to Cover National Security in an Insecure World", 44 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 641 (2009).
  8. "Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis". Community. Retrieved 2021-04-27.
  9. In re Michael G. Venezia, 191 N.J. 259, 922 A.2d 1263 (2007)
  10. New Jersey General Assembly. "N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-21". Statutes of New Jersey. New Jersey.
  11. The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. , 160N.H.227 (2010).
  12. Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham. "Free Flow of Information Act of 2009". Thomas. Archived from the original on 6 December 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.
  13. Savage, Charlie (15 July 2013). "Criticized on Seizure of Records, White House Pushes News Media Shield Law". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 July 2013.
  14. In "Why Journalists Are Not above the Law," Gabriel Schoenfeld talks about the Constitutional freedom of the press. She believes that journalists should not be exempt from national security laws. Schoenfeld feels that journalists should not be able to report on national security issues. Although the shield law is a form of protection, reporters are not covered when it comes to national security.
  15. Cohen, David S.; Donley, Greer; Rebouché, Rachel (January 2023). "THE NEW ABORTION BATTLEGROUND". Columbia Law Review. 123 (1).
  16. 1 2 Grant, Rebecca (23 July 2023). "Group using 'shield laws' to provide abortion care in states that ban it". The Guardian.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Non-disclosure agreement</span> Contractual agreement not to disclose specified information

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also known as a confidentiality agreement (CA), confidential disclosure agreement (CDA), proprietary information agreement (PIA), or secrecy agreement (SA), is a legal contract or part of a contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material, knowledge, or information that the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict access to. Doctor–patient confidentiality, attorney–client privilege, priest–penitent privilege and bank–client confidentiality agreements are examples of NDAs, which are often not enshrined in a written contract between the parties.

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.

Attorney–client privilege or lawyer–client privilege is the common law doctrine of legal professional privilege in the United States. Attorney–client privilege is "[a] client's right to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney."

Confidentiality involves a set of rules or a promise usually executed through confidentiality agreements that limits the access to or places restrictions on distribution of certain types of information.

A subpoena duces tecum, or subpoena for production of evidence, is a court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial. In some jurisdictions, it can also be issued by legislative bodies such as county boards of supervisors.

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. 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 in which the U.S. Supreme Court has considered the use of reporters' privilege.

In journalism, a source is a person, publication, or knowledge of other record or document that gives timely information. Outside journalism, sources are sometimes known as "news sources". Examples of sources include but are not limited to official records, publications or broadcasts, officials in government or business, organizations or corporations, witnesses of crime, accidents or other events, and people involved with or affected by a news event or issue.

<i>Apple v. Does</i> California Courts of Appeal case

Apple v. Does was a high-profile legal proceeding in United States of America notable for bringing into question the breadth of the shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and whether that law applied to online news journalists writing about corporate trade secrets. The case was also notable for the large collection of amici curiae who joined in the matter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Risen</span> American journalist

James Risen is an American journalist for The Intercept. He previously worked for The New York Times and before that for Los Angeles Times. He has written or co-written many articles concerning U.S. government activities and is the author or co-author of two books about the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and a book about the American public debate about abortion. Risen is a Pulitzer Prize winner.

<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.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press(RCFP) is a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., that provides pro bono legal services and resources to and on behalf of journalists. The organization pursues litigation, offers direct representation, submits amicus curiae briefs, and provides other legal assistance on matters involving the First Amendment, press freedom, freedom of information, and court access issues.

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.

In common law jurisdictions and some civil law jurisdictions, legal professional privilege protects all communications between a professional legal adviser and his or her clients from being disclosed without the permission of the client. The privilege is that of the client and not that of the lawyer.

Source protection, sometimes also referred to as source confidentiality or in the U.S. as the reporter's privilege, is a right accorded to journalists under the laws of many countries, as well as under international law. It prohibits authorities, including the courts, from compelling a journalist to reveal the identity of an anonymous source for a story. The right is based on a recognition that without a strong guarantee of anonymity, many would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interests with journalists.

In Australia, legal professional privilege is a rule of law protecting communications between legal practitioners and their clients from disclosure under compulsion of court or statute. While the rule of legal professional privilege in Australia largely mirrors that of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, there are a number of notable qualifications and modifications to the privilege specific to Australia and its states, and contentious issues about the direction of the privilege.

The Free Flow of Information Act is a bill intended to provide a news reporter with the right to refuse to testify as to information or sources of information obtained during the newsgathering and dissemination process.

Myron A. Farber is an American newspaper reporter for The New York Times, whose investigations into the deaths of several patients at an Oradell, New Jersey, hospital led to the murder trial of Mario Jascalevich, a physician at the hospital who was alleged to have used a powerful muscle relaxant in what became known as the "Dr. X" case. After refusing to turn over notes from his investigation in response to a subpoena from the defense attorney in the case, Farber was jailed for contempt and the newspaper fined, ending up spending 40 days in jail with fines of $285,000 assessed. Appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, the case set a precedent for the limitations of shield laws in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Shield Law</span>

The California Shield Law provides statutory and constitutional protections to journalists seeking to maintain the confidentiality of an unnamed source or unpublished information obtained during newsgathering. The shield law is currently codified in Article I, section 2(b) of the California Constitution and section 1070 of the Evidence Code. Section 1986.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) supplements these principal shield law provisions by providing additional safeguards to a reporter whose records are being subpoenaed.

<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.

In 2013, the United States Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, came under scrutiny from the media and some members of Congress for subpoenaing phone records from the Associated Press (AP). Under similar justifications, a 2010 subpoena approved by Eric Holder implicated Fox News reporter, James Rosen, as a possible co-conspirator under the Espionage Act of 1917. Investigators gained access to the times of his phone calls, and two days of Rosen's emails. Stephen Jin-Woo Kim eventually pleaded guilty to violating the Espionage Act for communicating North Korean nuclear test plans to Rosen. These investigations provoked considerable criticism from major news organizations, and precipitated the revision of media guidelines at the Department of Justice.

References

Further reading