The Importance of a Press Beholden to None

The press is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Many journalists in the press around the world, and the sources that help to inform them, have faced intimidation and have even been killed for their activities in exposing the doings of powerful men and women. Their efforts continue to help shape the direction of entire nations as they inform the people, keeping them aware of the great successes and great failures of government, society, and everything else in between the two. In the current political climate journalism faces threats to its very credibility, stemming from the degradation of the truth, which has become a product of politicized opinion. However, journalists themselves are charged with operating in a unique role, one that is outside of politics and seeks to reveal only the truth. But, this special avenue, the road to the truth, is a veritable catch 22, where the press must seek to uncover the truth but also to protect and “hide the truth” about informants and sources. The press currently utilizes legal protections called shield laws in the United States to prevent such a forced disclosure of confidential information.[1] In the United States today there is no federal shield law, so the press relies on state shield laws. However, there is currently an ongoing movement to pass a federal law, though I argue that it is necessary that the United States prevent the passage of such a law to ensure the continued viability of our democratic institutions, including preserving the complete independence of the press, and to protect the people that jeopardize their careers and livelihoods in order to inform the search for the truth.

Americans typically have a passing grasp of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights, including the 1stAmendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech and the 2nd’s right to bear arms. However, what many do not fully grasp is how powerful such amendments are and how the protections afforded by federal and state laws differ and are derived. Notably the fact that state laws are derived from state constitutions, and federal laws, though superseding state laws in certain applications (under the Supremacy Clause),[2] are derived from the U.S. Constitution. While journalism is a career choice of many that has existed for centuries, the first occurrence specifically regarding whether journalists had special federal legal protections under the Constitution or federal common law occurred in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Branzburg v. Hayes (1972). In this case, Branzburg, a reporter, was conducting interviews with drug users and synthesizers in Kentucky. The case was tried with two other men who were in the same legal dilemma as Branzburg, both of whom had been reporters covering the Black Panther Party. When called upon by state grand juries, Branzburg and the other reporters refused to reveal confidential information about crimes they may have seen or even appear before a grand jury – an appearance that would occur behind closed doors and provide no way of proving to the defendant’s confidential sources that they had remained confidential.[3] Branzburg and his fellow defendants argued that they were protected under the Press Clause in the 1st Amendment, “"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom... of the press," essentially asserting that they, as the press, were subject to exceptional legal privileges.[4] Some may find it strange that the issue of a federal shield law is raised in this case, though it seemingly only pertains to Branzburg’s activities in the state of Kentucky, and that is largely due to the fact that Branzburg and the two other men involved in the joint cases were depending on the 1st Amendment, an amendment to the federally pertaining U.S. Constitution, as the basis of their defense.[5] In fact, the Supreme Court was debating whether or not the men involved had a Constitutional right to avoid answering to the grand juries, though the matter of whether or not a reporter would have to testify as to crimes witnessed was a second question addressed. The court, in a 5-4 decision, declared their argument invalid and stated that the need for grand juries to require reporters to disclose confidential information satisfied a legitimate need of government.[6] The court justified its decisions by stating that the First Amendment always entailed restrictions, such as its balancing against the public’s interest, and that this interest in pursuing the application of the law against criminals outweighed the public’s interest in learning about them.[7] Justice Byron White, writing for the majority wrote:

Until now, the only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do” and he continued with, "from the beginning of the country the press has operated without constitutional protection for press informants, and the press has flourished.[8]

However, Justice White did not disregard the protections of journalists and relied on a legal test to judge the question expounded upon above, citing Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963).[9] This case came about because the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee had demanded that Gibson, being the president of the Miami Branch of the NAACP, turn over a list of its members to further the Committee’s search for information on subversive organizations tied to the Communist party. Mr. Gibson refused and was found in contempt. Here the court found that no substantial proof of connections linked the two, meaning that a “compelling and subordinating governmental interest” would not be served by Gibson’s handing over of the list.[10] While this was in line with the majority opinion, following legal decisions regarding shield laws derived from the concurring opinion of Justice Powell, who wrote:

The asserted claim to privilege should be judged on its facts by the striking of a proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct. The balance of these vital constitutional and societal interests on a case-by-case basis accords with the tried and traditional way of adjudicating such questions.[11]

The fear among journalists was that Branzburg v. Hayes decisions would usher in a dystopia reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, though the decision primarily made it clear that journalists were not to be afforded special protections under the Constitution. However, the limited ruling created no clear precedent regarding the revealing of confidential resources and led to different courts interpreting and citing Branzburg v. Hayes in a variety of manners. Particularly, Justice Powell’s wording, “The balance of these vital constitutional and societal interests on a case-by-case basis accords with the tried and traditional way of adjudicating such questions,” gave rise to an interpretation of the ruling that encompassed the view that the court had intended for other related cases to be settled case by case, as if to decide the constitutionality of the application of a privilege in each.

While there have been various interpretations of the federal cases, and there has been no federal shield law, 48 of the states (and the District of Columbia) have shield laws or court recognized privileges. Hawaii’s exact situation is unclear, as the state of the shield law there has varied several times over the past decade.[12] Only Wyoming definitively lacks both, and the state courts are likely to turn to federal law due to the lack of case law regarding Wyoming’s protections, “No Wyoming journalist is known to have been fined or jailed for failing to comply with a subpoena.”[13]While 17 states already had such protections in place before Branzburg v. Hayes, Justice White explicitly endorsed such protections, “There is also merit in leaving state legislatures free, within First Amendment limits, to fashion their own standards in light of the conditions and problems with respect to the relations between law enforcement officials and press in their own areas.”[14] These state laws vary greatly in scope, though the test for overcoming these state protections in most of the states are derived at least in part with respect to the dissenting opinion of Justice Potter Stewart,[15] whose dissent specified that in order for a journalist to be compelled to testify the government must:

(1) show . . . probable cause to believe that the newsman has information that is clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of law; (2) demonstrate that the information sought cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of First Amendment rights; and (3) demonstrate a compelling and overriding interest in the information.[16]

Depending on the state, journalists are afforded differing protections under different circumstances, and each has a varying level of power. Some states grant an absolute privilege while others grant conditional privileges to reporters, and the state laws also have the power to determine who exactly falls under the label of journalist. For example, “in Alabama journalists working for newspapers and radio and television stations are protected, but those working for magazines are not.”[17] Additionally, other state laws highlight what can be protected under the pertinent law or court privilege and what cannot be protected. For instance, in accordance with the Florida Evidence Code Section 90.5015, journalist privilege “does not apply to physical evidence, eyewitness observations, or visual or audio recording of crimes.”[18] [19]

Supporters use the problem of state discrepancies to argue that a federal shield law is needed to unify all legal protections for journalists and resolve any confusion that they or their attorneys may have, “Conflicting laws and judicial precedent have rendered journalists and the legal community wholly unsure about what rights journalists have to protect their sources.”[20] And these proponents of a federal law have a legitimate concern. Differences in state’s legislation has the effect of removing protections for some depending on where a case is being tried. To again highlight the case of Alabama, “journalists working for newspapers and radio and television stations are protected, but those working for magazines are not.”[21] On the other hand, California has one of the most flexible and inclusive state shield laws. Perhaps unsurprisingly with such an analysis, it has also been one of the most updated laws in terms of relevance to changing journalistic practices, shown in the case O’Grady v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, where the Court of Appeals of California ruled that the “gathering and dissemination of online information by a variety of means, including the solicitation of submissions by confidential sources, constitutes the gathering and dissemination of news, as that phrase must be understood and applied under California’s shield law.” This ruling was significant because the defendant, a Mr. Jason O’Grady, was an operator of an online news magazine.[22] There is undoubtedly a need for state shield laws to be amended, and they should be updated to reflect the changed and evolved nature of the press like California’s, but there is the larger issue of assigning that job to the federal government. The problem with a federal law, and the superseding unification of state laws when cases occur at a national level, is that it risks defining who gets to enjoy these extra legal protections, in either a too inclusive or too narrow definition decided by the federal government. Accordingly, a recent federal shield bill attempt sought to define who exactly was a member of the press by including a broad list of those covered, but already excluded a great variety of jobs affiliated with the press, some of them explicitly mentioned by White in Branzburg: "lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists." The bill also dismissed many web-based citizen journalists who are now at the forefront of the changing face of how America receives its news.[23] Such a bill exhibits the potential risk allowing a singular federal law to improperly exempt and restrict individuals from portraying and disseminating the news, striking at one of the most powerful examples of civic participation in a democracy. This law would rest on a doctrine contrary to one of inclusion, and would rest on, as Lewis labels it, "press exceptionalism," which would establish a class of the press that Congress recognizes, and even endorses, that diminishes the scope and relative competitive position of everyone else.[24] Though a federal law would potentially restrict who comprises the press, a more fundamental issue with such a piece of legislation is that it would jeopardize the institution of the independent press. A federal law would in fact mean that the federal government sanctions a free press, essentially claiming that an “independent” press derives its powers from the institution of government, “For their part, journalists claim that allowing a legislature to define the scope of the privilege is tantamount to licensing the press.”[25] It is this freedom from the reach of government that gives a press its credibility. While such national news services exist, with good examples being those run by Russia and China, there is a reason why people view these organizations and the news they publish with apprehension – precisely because the news delivered may very well be reported on in a manner tailored to suit those government’s own interests. As Gerald Kato, an associate professor in the School of Communications at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, notes, “It points to the problems if not the danger of going to a legislative body and seeking some help for the press,”[26] as if the press needs the green light of government. As the late Anthony Lewis, the New York Times opinion columnist and renowned student of the First Amendment, argued:

The whole idea of treating the press as an "institution" arouses uneasy feelings. In the American system, institutions are usually subject to external check. The press has operated as a freebooter, outside the system. The more formally it is treated as a fourth branch of government, the more pressing will be demands that it be made formally accountable. Moreover . . . the institutional view of the first amendment envisages a corporate organization of society, with groups assigned different roles and corresponding legal rights. The traditional American vision has been universal, positing a society of individuals with equal rights and responsibilities.[27]

Allowing the government to grant legal privileges to the press, removing their ability to claim complete independence, is not the only predicament that a federal shield law presents. A secondary issue is that a federal shield law might very well threaten national security operations, orchestrated to prevent classified information from being revealed to the public or to foreign nationals, by legitimizing protections for those who instigate government leaks. A federal shield law would, “undermine the government's ability to enforce the law and provide for the common defense, upsetting the delicate balance between freedom and security that we now struggle to maintain.”[28] In fact, it was a matter of national security that helped derail previous work on a federal shield law after Edward Snowden published information on the National Security Agency, which helped to heighten legitimate fears that those without official ties to mainstream or established media outlets might be able to publish confidential information and then hide behind such a shield law, including organizations like WikiLeaks.[29] Evidence can be found represented in the analysis of the Branzburg v. Hayesdecision by Columbia University, where a concern of the Justices was that a federal shield law or like-minded federal privilege might “lead to many criminals avoiding judicial liability for their acts.”[30] Such a take on the question of a federal shield law boils down to whether journalists should be held above or exempt from national security laws. This debate is exemplified in the case of James Risen, a reporter for The Intercept, who previously worked at The New York Times among other prominent publications.[31] Risen was informed by former CIA Officer Jeffrey Sterling of multiple top-secret topics, including information regarding CIA operations to prevent Iran’s acquiring of a nuclear weapon. The CIA caught wind of the story, and met with The New York Times, which decided to kill the story on the grounds that it would jeopardize the United States efforts and the safety of at least one CIA source (despite The New York Timesfrequently publishing sensitive information amidst government warnings). However, Risen decided to publish on his own, including the material given to him by Sterling in his 2006 book titled State of War.[32] When called upon to testify against Sterling in the man’s treason trial, United States v. Sterling, Risen refused, mirroring the case of Branzburg v. Hayes. Like in that case, the court held that there was no common-law privilege that would prevent Risen from testifying and found that the relative success of the press invalidated the argument that a First Amendment or journalist/reporter’s privilege would hurt the press. The Fourth Circuit found, in line with the 1972 ruling in Branzburg v. Hayes, that, “While some states may create a privilege for the press in state court actions, . . .  such privileges do not exist on the federal level.”[33] The obvious threat here is that confidential information was gathered and later published, regardless of explicit requests by the government and even the paper’s own killing of the story, solely on Risen’s swearing of confidentiality to Sterling. That interaction was all that was needed for Sterling to reveal classified secrets that had the potential to derail American operations and endanger American lives. Again referring to the analysis of Branzburg v. Hayes by Columbia University, “Creating such a privilege [permitting a journalist to refuse to testify] would lead to the absurd conclusion that any criminal who merely talked to a journalist would be able to avoid liability if the journalist was the only party who could actually identify the criminal.”[34] A federal shield law would necessarily give the protection of such transgressions that threaten this country the force of federal law.[35]

Many argue in support of a federal shield law because they see it as the best means by which to protect this country’s journalists and the press. But despite those people’s good intentions, there is simply a lack of grounds to justify its existence. I do not mean grounds in terms of any debated necessity or ethical need, but rather grounds in reference to the legal mandate permitting the government to derive legislation and enforce the law of the land. The federal government is simply unable to fulfill the protections such a federal shield law would offer, because it would overturn the Supreme Court’s precedent set by Branzburg (and restated in others) and expand the government's powers in a style that the highest court of the country has repeatedly found unfitting with both pre-existing federal common law and the Constitution. Though journalists serve a vital interest in maintaining and protecting our democracy, federalizing a shield law would afford greater legal rights to reporters and journalists than others,[36] and would raise “institutionalized” journalists to a point where they are above the law.[37] This is seen to be in direct opposition with established principles of equality in our court system, principles founded to prevent the abuse of the legal system by those in power (see United States v. Nixon below). There are indeed protections for specific people in confidential arrangements, such as those afforded to doctors, lawyers, religious advisors, spouses, and just a few others because there is a legitimate public interest that “justifies the exclusion of testimony by certain people against others.”[38] These protections are comprised in federal common law and supplanted by state common law when applicable, and the exact arrangements contained therein can be found in the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 501. Privilege in General.[39] However, the courts have found through argument and through precedent that journalists and the press, despite the sanctity of the First Amendment and in face of other legal arguments, are not above the law in testifying before a grand jury or answering a subpoena, like the common man. Even when the man defying a subpoena while attempting to protect the confidentiality of communications, the same protection desired by the press, was the president, as was the case in United States v. Nixon, the court still found grounds to compel his testimony.[40] And despite the importance of the press and journalists in revealing information, there is no legal basis that would enable a shield law to protect members of the press who delve through the government’s confidential information without facing the ensuing legal repercussions. As Justice Potter Stewart remarked, when speaking in his 1974 address at Yale Law School:

So far as the Constitution goes, the autonomous press may publish what it knows, and may seek to learn what it can. But this autonomy cuts both ways. The press is free to do battle against secrecy and deception in government. But the press cannot expect from the Constitution any guarantee that it will succeed. There is no constitutional right to have access to particular government information, or to require openness from the bureaucracy. The public's interest in knowing about its government is protected by the guarantee of a Free Press, but the protection is indirect. The Constitution itself is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act. The Constitution, in other words, establishes the contest, not its resolution.[41]

Such an assumption, then codified into law under the potential passage of a future federal shield bill, assumes exactly the right that is explicitly admitted to be nonexistent by Justice Stewart, one of the dissenting justices in Branzburg, and relies on an interpretation of government that is juxtaposed with the reality of our “legal and constitutional order.”[42]

Despite this paper’s arguments in opposition to a federal shield law, this paper should not be misconstrued as an advocation for the restriction of the rights of the press. Journalists should of course enjoy the fullest extent of protections put in place and guaranteed under existing state and federal laws, and I hope that the existing state shield laws come to accurately reflect and protect the developments in journalism that exist today. However, a federal shield law, despite its purported mission to “preserve” the free press, what Justice Potter Stewart called, “The Fourth Estate,”[43] actually endangers that press. If the press, in its aim to inform the people of this democracy, becomes an institutionalized investigative arm of the very government that endorses its power and grants its special legal privileges, the public will lose faith in and respect for the works published. Though this may seem improbable, if not impossible, such a law dictating journalist’s legal rights runs the intrinsic danger of coming to mean that those rights are the not only the governments to give, but to take away, modify, and limit.[44] Not only that, but the confidential sources that are so relied upon by journalists will become wary of such a press, and the free flow of information that is enjoyed in such partnerships today will be threatened. And all too frequently, regardless of the status of a federal shield law, whistle blowers continue to release confidential information to the press. Despite a clear mandate stating that those in stations that have access to such powerful information have an expected duty to preserve the secrecy tied with the continued maintenance of their post, there will always still be those that abuse power, causing issues that must be revealed and solved. These abuses should be sought to be solved within government, instead of in ways that play out in the public theatre and potentially endanger American lives and interests. However, despite frequent leaks, the press’s duty does not mandate its acquiring and publishing of classified information, which should only be revealed under the specifications directed by law. That is the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act (1966) and the Presidential Records Act (created in the aftermath of the Branzburg v. Hayes ruling), among others, that enables the press and the public to delve into confidential sources in a legal manner while keeping American affairs safe.[45] What is not needed is a federal shield law, but a better system to keep those responsible for preserving our democracy behaving in line with the spirit and directive of their office. And instead of having a Commander in Chief who disparages the press and labels them “the enemy of the people,”[46]America should be guided by a leader embodying the ideals set forth in the Constitution; one who aims to protect the press and who allows it to serve its ultimate job as an independent judge and informer of the truth to the American people – a task put at jeopardy by the potential federalization of a shield law.

[1] The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Shield Law.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., November 28, 2016. https://www.britannica.com/topic/shield-law.

[2] “Article VI: Prior Debts, National Supremacy Clause, and Oaths of Office.” National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org, February 21, 2014. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/article-vi-prior-debts-national-supremacy-clause-and-oaths-of-office.

[3] Goodale, James C. “Branzburg v. Hayes and the Developing Qualified Privilege for Newsmen.” Hastings Law Journal 26, no. 3 (1975). https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol26/iss3/4.

[4] “First Amendment.” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment.

[5] “Branzburg v. Hayes.” Global Freedom of Expression, January 19, 2016. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/branzburg-v-hayes/.

[6] “Branzburg v. Hayes.” Oyez. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-85.

[7] “Branzburg v. Hayes.” Global Freedom of Expression, January 19, 2016. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/branzburg-v-hayes/.

[8] “Branzburg v. Hayes.” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/665.

[9] “Branzburg v. Hayes.” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/665.

[10] “Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee.” Oyez. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/6.

[11] “Branzburg v. Hayes.” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/665.

[12] Duchemin, John P. “Reporters' Privilege Compendium: Hawaii Shield Laws Guide - RCFP.” The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/hawaii/.

[13] Moats, Bruce T. “Reporters' Privilege Compendium: Wyoming Shield Laws Guide - RCFP.” The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/wyoming/.

[14] “Branzburg v. Hayes.” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/665.

[15] Kirtley, Jane E. “Shield Laws.” Shield Laws. The Free Speech Center at MTSU. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1241/shield-laws.

[16] McInnis, Tom. “Branzburg v. Hayes.” Branzburg v. Hayes. The Free Speech Center at MTSU. Accessed December 30, 2019. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/740/branzburg-v-hayes.

[17] Kirtley, Jane E. “Shield Laws.” Shield Laws. The Free Speech Center at MTSU. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1241/shield-laws.

[18] Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine, December 30, 2019. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.5015.html.

[19] “Reporters Privilege Compendium: Shield Laws Guide - RCFP.” The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-privilege/.

[20] Harris, Margot. “Is It Finally Time For A Federal Shield Law?” News Media Alliance. News Media Alliance, September 11, 2018. https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/fed-shield-law-2018/.

[21] Kirtley, Jane E. “Shield Laws.” Shield Laws. The Free Speech Center at MTSU. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1241/shield-laws.

[22] “Differences between State Shield Laws.” Protecting News Sources: A Study of Shield Law, April 15, 2014. https://weishenlawproject.wordpress.com/differences-between-state-shield-laws/.

[23] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. “Time for a Shield Law?” National Affairs. National Affairs, 2014. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/time-for-a-shield-law.

[24] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. “Time for a Shield Law?” National Affairs. National Affairs, 2014. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/time-for-a-shield-law.

[25] Kirtley, Jane E. “Shield Laws.” Shield Laws. The Free Speech Center at MTSU. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1241/shield-laws.

[26] Taylor, Paul W. “Are State Shield Laws a Double-Edged Sword?” Governing, July 2013. https://www.governing.com/columns/dispatch/col-state-shield-laws-double-edged-sword.html.

[27] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. “Time for a Shield Law?” National Affairs. National Affairs, 2014. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/time-for-a-shield-law.

[28] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. “Time for a Shield Law?” National Affairs. National Affairs, 2014. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/time-for-a-shield-law.

[29] Gerstein, Josh, and Seung Min Kim. “House Passes Reporter's Shield Measure, Again.” POLITICO, June 3, 2015. https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/06/house-passes-reporters-shield-measure-again-208206.

[30] “Branzburg v. Hayes.” Global Freedom of Expression, January 19, 2016. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/branzburg-v-hayes/.

[31] “James Risen.” The Intercept. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://theintercept.com/staff/jimrisen/.

[32] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. “Time for a Shield Law?” National Affairs. National Affairs, 2014. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/time-for-a-shield-law.

[33] “United States v. Sterling.” Global Freedom of Expression, March 4, 2015. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/united-states-v-sterling/.

[34] “Branzburg v. Hayes.” Global Freedom of Expression, January 19, 2016. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/branzburg-v-hayes/.

[35] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. “Time for a Shield Law?” National Affairs. National Affairs, 2014. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/time-for-a-shield-law.

[36] Kirtley, Jane E. “Shield Laws.” Shield Laws. The Free Speech Center at MTSU. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1241/shield-laws.

[37] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. “Time for a Shield Law?” National Affairs. National Affairs, 2014. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/time-for-a-shield-law.

[38] Peters, Jonathan. “Shield Laws and Journalist's Privilege: The Basics Every Reporter Should Know.” Columbia Journalism Review, August 2, 2016. https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/journalists_privilege_shield_law_primer.php.

[39] “Rule 501. Privilege in General.” Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_501.

[40] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. “Time for a Shield Law?” National Affairs. National Affairs, 2014. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/time-for-a-shield-law.

[41] Stewart, Potter. “Or of the Press.” Hastings Law Journal 26, no. 3 (1975). https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2386&context=hastings_law_journal.

[42] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. “Time for a Shield Law?” National Affairs. National Affairs, 2014. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/time-for-a-shield-law.

[43] Stewart, Potter. “Or of the Press.” Hastings Law Journal 26, no. 3 (1975). https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2386&context=hastings_law_journal.

[44] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. “Time for a Shield Law?” National Affairs. National Affairs, 2014. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/time-for-a-shield-law.

[45] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. “Time for a Shield Law?” National Affairs. National Affairs, 2014. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/time-for-a-shield-law.

[46] Harris, Margot. “Is It Finally Time For A Federal Shield Law?” News Media Alliance. News Media Alliance, September 11, 2018. https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/fed-shield-law-2018/.