, Legal Times

Justices Decline to Review Reporters' Privilege Dispute


The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the case of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist James Risen, who sought First Amendment protection from being forced to reveal his confidential sources in a criminal proceeding.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Avon

    I don‘t get it! Tony Mauro is a superb and highly experienced legal reporter - but, how is it "not a surprise" for the Court to address an issue that‘s so clearly due to be addressed at last?! The longer it‘s been since the Court did its work, the more timely it would be.

    And, how is it reassuring that Holder intends to refrain from seeking jail for any reporter "who is doing his job," when the entire issue is whether or not it‘s his job to enable a CIA leak?

    I‘m deeply concerned that Risen is at risk for punishment when the law is overwhelmingly to the contrary, and cries out for an authoritative holding to that effect.

    My only solace is the thought that if there weren‘t four votes to hear the case, the Court‘s First-Amendment protectors have decided that they don‘t have the votes for a reversal, so they‘re protecting America from the awful precedent of an affirmance.
    If that‘s the excuse, I‘d gratefully accept it. I just hope it is.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202657563706

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.