Branzburg v. Hayes

Brief Fact Summary.

In each of 3 cases, the reporters had been compelled to testify regarding information that had been obtained on the promise of confidentiality.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The First Amendment does not grant reporters the privilege to refuse to testify before a grand jury.

Facts.

This matter consisted of 3 separate matters combined into one appeal for judicial efficiency.

Branzburg, a Kentucky reporter, wrote articles describing his observations of local hashish-making and other drug violations. He refused to testify before a grand jury regarding his information.

Pappas, a Massachusetts TV newsman-photographer, was allowed to enter and remain inside a Black Panther headquarters if he disclosed nothing. When an anticipated police raid did not occur, he wrote no story. Summoned before a local grand jury, he refused to answer any questions about what had occurred inside the Panther headquarters or to identify those he had observed.

Caldwell, a reporter covering the Black Panthers was summoned to appear before a federal grand jury investigating Panther activities. A federal court issued a protective order providing that although he had to divulge information given him, he could withhold confidential information developed or maintained by him as a professional journalist. Caldwell disregarded the order and was held in contempt.

Issue.

Is the requirement that news reporters appear and testify before state or federal grand juries a violation of their rights of freedom of speech and press under the First Amendment?

Held.

No, the requirement that news reporters appear and testify before state or federal grand juries is not a violation of their rights of freedom of speech and press under the First Amendment.

Concurrence.

Justice Powell

This is a narrow holding. The Court is not holding that newsmen subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury are not without constitutional rights with respect to gathering news or in safeguarding their sources. If a grand jury is not conducted with good faith, the newsmen are not without a remedy.

Discussion.

Requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries serves a compelling state interest and does not violate the First Amendment. Since the present case involves no government intervention to impose prior restraint, and no command to publish sources or to disclose them indiscriminately, there is no constitutional violation. Just as an average citizen is often forced to disclose information received in confidence when summoned to testify in court, so must reporters. The mere fact that reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation.

This is a narrow holding. The Court is not holding that newsmen subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury are not without constitutional rights with respect to gathering news or in safeguarding their sources. If a grand jury is not conducted with good faith, the newsmen are not without a remedy.Requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries serves a compelling state interest and does not violate the First Amendment. Since the present case involves no government intervention to impose prior restraint, and no command to publish sources or to disclose them indiscriminately, there is no constitutional violation. Just as an average citizen is often forced to disclose information received in confidence when summoned to testify in court, so must reporters. The mere fact that reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation.