BRANZBURG v. HAYES
70-85
~- ZLN<4~~(lfV~)
~~~~
~
------::)
,._
4 ~1-<--v ~~~At~~ ' '
.
&>u4..JL ~ <?::!= 91 o-i.(~~(p4~, '-1?)
~ ~ ~ ~k~ ~~ H--4. ~
~· > ~1<'~.
·lh...tz_ c.p s ~ 1-o ~
(
~~-p(,-~~lo~~~~
I
n::;__._,"
Tf' ~
~~
7/-s ~~: r+~· ~---o-
w~k~~~ --;d~ ~~
~"""" ~ ~f+..t '-'4 ~. ~ "'-'-'.
~~~a;~4V=--~
~
. ·
-
2 - ~~~~
'
3 , ~~~~~
~-
~J
-
of~ ~'Y'- ~.A.-Z.l
.~ ~-;:_~1-TAvc''~­
~~~~~
~---------------------
------------
-~~(sc,--a~._)
'S..u-8-~
~~~~~. ~~
LA.-.
,~1
(N-
~~
n,._,
~.
~
~ ~-~/~- ~ -~t· · ~
M ~~ ~ ~(~ ~)rv~~'
r·'V' ~.
1~1--t
4
14
t.o ,,~ ,,
~~ . ~ t ~ ~
~e-r d~ ~0--' -- '1· vt- :._~ re ~Ly-)2-- _
&.-t_
•
iAJ.-.<-.Ll ~- ~f~t.__ ~
(~~~~c;~~~"j~)·
G~
J~ Hv...~af~~ ~~--~
·--
.
7
~~~~~ ~~"-.
'-'
~
,
t--1
~~.
I1
~
I
,,
$..u_.. S.G.
CL-
~
•
(
.
~-p7-~k ~~
C<h-o cycf C<.Af. ~ - ~)
s. a.. ~1.a--t-1i ~ ~~~~~
~~~~ ~~1~1~~ 7Jg
lfp/a 4cc 2/H/72
UNITED 8I'ATE8 Y.. CALDWE
70oe5V
IN RE PAUL PAPPAS '10-94
BRANZBURG Y. BAYES & MEIGS 70-85
xrpea Z/23/'12
Teatatlw ~Nlc:aa•
Although the facta tn th- cues differ, c011Jt881 for tbe media -
ill the prtactpal briefs aad ta t1ut briefs amlcu .. are -.....rtmg a FlriJt
AmendmeDt right ... a rlgbt d: c~ltattoaal proportlau - to a prtYilep
&llhult di8cloemg - m judicial or ether proceedings - sources of
information or c<mfklenttal tnformatlan.
Statemeate of tbl8
pOIIiUOD Y&ry.
That iD the brief Cll bebalf
ot Branzbars (at p. 9) 11 typtcaJ.:
"The Firat Amendment proridea neweme a prlvilep
agatuat compaleory appearaacea m eloeecl proeeedlap
and aptaet cornpl11aory dJ.aclQI'U.l$ of coofldentlal
tnfo:rmatt<m. In order to overcome thla prt:rileee, the
state baa tbe AYJ bvdeD ~ prortng, by clear and
e noetag evtdeftee, tbat tile testtm<my of tbe reporter
Ia absolutely nee. . .17 to prewut ctlnct, Immediate
aadlrrep&rable proepectlft damage to the aatlonal
seeurlty, humu life or llberty. Any le-r bu.rdeD
does not adeqaately protect the pMaa from state
action whteh endaa&ers tbe freedom ol the preu
guaranteed by the First Amendment.
*Thiee lmpreaslou an dictated c:a the aftei'DOOil foUowSDg argurneat
to record my llllllal a.Dd teatatlye t.mpreatou.. I wW. haft read,
Ia preparatloo for tbe arpmenta, tbe pri.Delpal brlefe, some of tbe
cues ud the bench memo. 1 hope to do luther .t:acty before tlw
Coafereace. MJ viewa are subject to chuge &Del to the dl8cualon
at the Conference.
2.
Prof. Bickel, representmg the New York Tlmea and varloas
other media, states tbelr poa1t1CD aa follows:
''The Firat AmeDdmeDt demaDde • • • that the reporter
be pr<Ueted. 1be staDc:lard f1 proteetlca can be defined
by objectlye criteria, and made alf llmlttDg In practice.
nA reporter cann«, CGUiateatly wltb the COP8Utattoa, be made to divalge cODfldences to a ~
lDYMtlgatlve body UJlle8a three Dllnlm&l tuta baft au
been met. l. The governmeat mut clearly show that
there 18 probable cauee to belleYe that tbe reporter
poueeaea mformatloa whlch 1a apeclfka n, releYaDt
to a speclftc probable nolatlcm of Jaw. 2. 'Ibe
gonrnmeat l1lWit clearly abow tbat the lDformatloo
it seeks C811Dot be obtaJned by alteru.tm meau, wbtch
is to say, from aoareea other tbaD. the nporter. 3.
The govemmeat mut clearly demODStrate a compelltag
aad onrrkUDs Interest ln tbemtormattoa.. •·
Tbe deelsloaa of the three courts c:Uf:fered materlally. In
Caldwell, tbe NlDth Circuit agreed nt.taatlally wlth the preaa although its declllloo was D&JTowly c:traWD lD Upt of the speclfk faeta
(the gonmm.ent bad not iDtroduced ay erideDce to ebow a oeed for
the teatlmc.y).
In Bruzbarg, tbe court reaclaed a dlfferat result from
Caldwell. It decld.ed tbat tbe reporter would baw to teaWy before
JUl.
tbe graDd jury, u.cllt express gran doabt as to whether there
any cmstttutlooal prt\'llege. The reporter bad net shown, u
ft.ll
wu true
ln Caldw'e!!, that he bad no Jnformatloo ... other than atones already
publt8bed - to dlacloee.
3.
as
no First Amendm t privil
e s
y
, qualifled or bsolute, a
llabl to
n.
Tentattr
Cald ell: I would reverse Caldwell.
establishing
as it ent too far in
eonstUuttonal rigbt not even to testify tall.
Branzburg: I would affirm the holding, althou
I
auld not
accept all of the re on.lng of t e court.
PaPJ!=!:
n see
tom that the assaehusetts court
been rlgbt tn holdlng that there 1s n
privile
a a
ay
:tter of c
-
right, either bsolute or qualified. But the Court did ot
g1Ye
e of ba
etng First Am
other interests tnvol: ed. I w
Pappas for
tabl bed 1n
dm nt
1d be tneltnet!
oo lderatlon tn ltght of the prlnelples and
Court' optntoa.
•••••
As tot e callro llln principle , I am tentatively tncllned to
share
259 F. 2d
rea d by Justice Ste
rt in Garland v. _T_,
o .....,.
5, namely, that th re is no eoostltutlonal privilege
4.
apeclllcaUy aftllable to aewam-. Mr. Jutsce
aewart also deeliDed
to reeopl• - as I read his optnlc. - .,... an "evlcleD.UarJ prlvt.Jaae"
(RCilu fJaat anlJable to a laWJ8r). Be did empbaatu the 1mportaDt
Firat Ameaclmeat 1Bten8t iDYo1.ftd, aacl ccmclaclld tbat U... -ded to
be balaaced apta.t the laterut betq •mel bf tJae admlalstratka ~
jaaUce (Ill tbe Garlaad
cue tbe a.eed to baft tbe tuttmcmy of a erltteal
wttaeu).
I baye beelltatereet.c~ID tlae prchetlw order eatered bJ Judae
e<ldldeatlal aoueea aad iDformatbl, bat reqalrecl the wltDeue8 to
appear before the pad JVJ aad to auwer qaestbaa "wtatch eaacem
or pertam to .any crtmiDal aet, the commJMtoa
~
wblell was aet.Uy
ob8ernd bJ Bl"Uisbaq. "
Some elaborattoll aad reftlaemat f1 J1ldp Yelp awroacb
ml&bt
mate---~
m. qaeJtftcatt~
for eample, wltll rwpeet to
crtm• "aetaaUy obaened" t.llGt broad eaoap. Crimea wldeb mtgtat
be plazaaed or clJ.8eaued tn Ilia
pre•••• .tlGild a« be prtrilepd.
Some of tile "a.fepards'' pr~••d bJ c,..t for tlae mediatiiiiCh u lmpoetag a
ta..Yy
burden en the 8tate to llbow a "compelltq
a-nat• a pabltc laearlq prior to
the D8W81D8Il beial ~ to aunr aay qae•tlca, co macb too tar.
aDd onrrtdlaa lnterftt", &ad to
L. F. P., Jr.
cont.
~~~o;·r~
Court ................... .
Voted on .................. , 19 .. .
February 23, , 19 ..72.
Argued ...................
Assigned .................. , 19 . . .
Submitted ................ , 19 . . .
Announced ................ , 19 . . .
No. 70-85
BRANZBURG
vs.
HAYES
HOLD
JURISDICTIONAL
NOT
CERT.
MERITS MOTION ABFOR ~~--~--~S~T_AT_E~M
__
EN_T~---~--,---+-~r--4SENT VOTG
Rehnquist, J ................. .
Powell, J .................... .
Blackmun, J ................. .
Marshall, J .................. .
White, J ..................... .
Stewart, J ................... .
Brennan, J ................... .
Douglas, J .................... .
Burger, Ch. J ................ .
D
N
POST
DIS
AFF
REV
AFF
G
D
lNG
~
DouGLAS, J.
12... ~ ""'- ....,
•
•
MARSHALL, J.
(!~.
~~~
~h1-4.
BRENNAN, J.
t..r-
V~ C11tt
~
~4.......c...
~~
fl• ,......,
BLACKMUN, J.
~ .... ,,....t_ ~ I. ; .....
t2f1
~
~ .-( ._ /~cL•tfr4A.•
p~
STEWART, J.
~
•
~
~;:.~~~
...
,f
WHITE,J.
-
( ,.,. •.-..<-Q.)
r,.. u••'-'- ~
(~
2
...
~
~~~J
~
POWELL, J.
~.N::
a..._..~~~
~ H-e.,~~()...-/
~~~
--y-
lfp/ss Sec 6/23/72
Mr, Justice DouglaS
Mr .l Juc tlco Lrennan
Mr. Ju s Uc <)
[)
tewart
Mr. Jur:J'cl:! ihite
Mr. - "~' ce
No. 70-85 Branzburg v. Hayes
No. 70-94 In tho Matt"er of Paul Papas
No. 70-57 U.S. v. Caldwell
Mr .
1
"" ·
,Jt.~
u
L...,
C~!
_ cu ,
~
~
J.
. .• JUN
i;
3 1972 _
Rt.c; ·.J..:. ~ U:
MR. JUSTICE POWELL, concurring, in the opinion
of the Court.
I add this brief statement to emphasize what seems to
me to be the limited nature of the Court's holding. The Court
does not hold that newsmen, subpoenaed to testify before a
grand jury, are without constitutional rights with respect to the
gathering of news or in safeguarding their sources. Certainly,
we do net hold, as suggested _Jn the dissenting opinion, that
state and federal authorities are free to "annex" the news media
as "an investigative arm of government. " The solicitude
repeatedly shown by this Court for First Amendment freedoms
should be sufficient assurance against any such effort, even if
'•
me seriously believed that the media - basically free and
•
untrammelled in the fullest sense of these te:rms - wdre
not able to protect themselves.
As indicated in the concluding portion of the opinion,
the Court states that no harassment of newsmen wUl be
,lJJ 'Yl
.,.ice Lel,nqt. st
rem : P , r ll
c~
·rsh~l l
L-nc
tolerated. If a newsman believes that the grand Jury lnvestigatlon
is not being conducted 1n good faith he is not without remedy.
Indeed, if the newsman is called upon to give information bearing
l
only a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject of the
investigation, or if he has some other reason to believe that hls
testimony Implicates coofldential source relationships without
a legitimate need of law enforcement, he will have access to
the Court on a motion to quash and an appropriate protection
order may be ~ntered. 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 ccmstttutional and societal interests an a case-by-case
basis accords with the tried and traditional way of adjudicating
such questions.
In short, the Court merely holds that a newsman -(h::0\1·,Jier
he:may..be.defiMd) has no testimonial privilege as a matter of
<
1
l
. I ..·
'
3.
right under the Constitution. We do not hold that the protection
of the eourts is unavailable to newsmen under circumstances
where legitimate First Amendment interests require protection.
Chief Jus tic e
c opyo: HrThe. JusttcG
Dougla
FILE
-PLEAS
T
RETURN
FIL.~:
Mr . JucticG Brenna 1
Mr . J<..c. d.uJ 3cowar.
Mr. Just1cc White
l.ir .
J~:.;cice
J,~::.rs ha l
·
Mr . Justice Blo.cl:mu
Lr . J\~.:>tice Hehnquit
1st DRAFT
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATEN
From : Powell, J.
Nos. 70- 85, 70-94,
AND
70- 57
C irculatod :8~~~ g 4
1911
Paul M. Branzburg,
Recircula ed : _____________
Petitioner,
On Writ of Certiorari to
v.
the Court of Appeals of
70- 85
Kentucky.
John P. Hayes, Judge, etc.,
et al.
In the Matter of Paul
Papas, Petitioner.
70- 94
United States, Petitioner,
70- 57
v.
Earl Caldwell.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts.
I
On Writ of Certiorari to
the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
[June -, 1972]
MR. JusTICE PowELL, concurring, m the opinion of
the Court.
I add this brief statement to emphasize what seems
to me to be the limited nature of the Court's holding.
The Court does not hold that newsmen, subpoenaed to
testify before a grand jury, are without constitutional
rights with respect to the gathering of news or in safeguarding their sources. Certainly, we do not hold, as
suggested in the dissenting opinion, that state and federal authorities are free to "annex" the news media as
"an investigative arm of government." The solicitude
repeatedly shown by this Court for First Amendment
freedoms should be sufficient assurance against any such
effort, even if one seriously believed that the mediabasically free and untrammelled in the fullest sense of
these terms-were not able to protect themselves.
70--85, 70--94, & 70--57-CONCUR
2
BHAl'\ZBUlW v. HAYES
As indicated in the concluding portion of the opinion,
the Court states that no harassment of newsmen will
be tolerated. If a newsman believes that the grand jury
investigation is not being conducted in good faith he
is not without remedy. Indeed, if the newsman is called
upon to give information bearing only a remote and
tenuous relationship to the subject of the investigation,
or if he has some other reason to believe that his testimony implicates confidential source relationships without a legitimate need of law enforcement, he will have
access to the Court on a motion to quash and an appropriate protective order may be entered. 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.*
·::·It i;; to be remembered th~t Caldwell ns,;erts n con · titution~I
priYilrge not e\·en t.o appear beforr the grand jm·~· unle,;" n court
drcidr~ tJutt the go\·rrnment hns m~clr a. ~hawing th~t mrrt~ the
thrrr J1re-condit.ion~ ~perifiecl in the cli8~rnting opinion of 1\TH .
•h rti'l'TC'J> Sn; \1'.\li'l'. To be ~ure. t hi~ would require ~ "balancing"·
of interc-:ti' by tlw Court, but under circum~t~nce.~ ~ncl con~t mint;;
significantly different from the balancing th~t will be nppropri:tte
under tho Court's deci,.,ion. The ne,rsm~n wit.ne.,s, likr all other
witnr... :<r~, will have to nppenr; hr will not be inn po~ition to litigate
at thr thrr...,holcl the St:1tr's Yrr~· ~uthorit_,. to !'uhporn:t him .
1\foreonr, ab~ent. tho con"titution:1l prr-ronclition." that Cnldwell
:mel tho di:;::<ent ing opinion would impose a~. !\CaY~ · burdrn~ of proal
to be carried by the State, thr court-whrn c~llrcl upon to prot ret
a. nrwsman from improper or prrjudici~l que"tioning-would be
free to ba.lancr the competing intrre.~ts on their mrrit:< in the part irular case. Thr new eonst it ut.ional rule rnclor~rd b~ · the cli~~rnt ing
opinion would, a;.; a. practir:1l matter, defeat ~uch a fair b:-tlanring
:mel the e,..,,ential societ~ll intcrr~t in thr clrtection and pro"ec·ution
of rrimr would be heavily subordinatrcl.
70--85, 70--94, & 70--57-CONCUR
BRANZBURG v. HAYES
In short, the Court merely holds that a newsman has
no testimonial privilege as a matter of right under the
Constitution. We do not hold that the protection of
the courts is unavailable to newsmen under circumstances
where legitimate First Amendment interests require
protection.