New York Times reporter loses appeal to Supreme Court to protect source

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a New York Times reporter, James Risen, attempting to protect his source in a trial of a former CIA official who allegedly provided classified information to Risen. The rejection leaves in place a federal appeals court decision against Risen. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. indicated that the Justice Department could ask the trial judge in the case to not send Risen to jail if he refuses to testify as he vowed to do. (The New York Times, June 2, 2014, by Adam Liptak)

The Freedom of the Press Foundation assailed the Obama administration for arguing that reporter’s privilege did not exist. “By going after Risen, the Obama administration has done more damage to reporter’s privilege than any other case in forty years, including the Valerie Plame leak investigation that ensnared Judy Miller during the Bush administration. The Fourth Circuit is where many national security reporters live and work, and by eviscerating the privilege there, the government has made national security reporting that much harder in an age where there has already been an explosion in use on surveillance to root out sources of journalists,” wrote Trevor Timm, June 2, 12014.

With the Obama administration bringing criminal charges over leaks in an unprecedented eight cases so far, a push to pass a national shield law for reporters has been underway in Congress, but the proposed law falls short of granting an absolute privilege to journalists. The administration has been accessing reporters’ phone and e-mail records, making it difficult for journalists to do their job. (Associated Press, June 2, 2014, by Mark Sherman)

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press commented on the decision, “We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court declined this opportunity to uphold journalists’ ability to protect confidential sources, which is 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.” (June 2, 2014, press release)