Replies

You have to love how the press is being typically hypocritical over this!! But to answer your question, the Supreme Ct. first ruled in Branzburg v. Hayes that reporters do not have an absolute First Amend. right to refuse to disclose their sources. Without getting too legalese the Hayes decision was a 5-4 ruling with Justice Powell wrote an concurring opinion (but still joined into the majority) which talked about a balancing test. Subsequently, a number of Courts (including the D.C. Circuit, which would most likely hear any challenges to subpoenas issued in this matter) has looked to Powell's concurring opinion as the precedent to follow. Even under the balancing test, the reporters should be made to name their sources if subpoenaed by a Fed. Grand Jury. Interestingly, the "media" spokespeople quoted in the article above are already trying to expand the scope of Powell's concurrence. The parts where they keep mentioning "exhausting all other remedies" applies in civil cases such as libel, etc. Hope this explains a bit.