Branzburg v. Hayes Case Analysis

Paul Branzburg worked as a staff reporter for a daily Louisville, Kentucky newspaper called the Courier-Journal. On November 15, 1969, Branzburg covered a story regarding two individuals synthesizing hashish from marijuana for profit. The author promised the informers that he would not reveal their identity, but Branzburg was shortly subpoenaed by the Jefferson County grand jury to expose the individuals; however, he refused. A state trial court judge ruled that a Kentucky statute and the United States First Amendment did not authorize his refusal to identify his informers. When Branzburg appealed, the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied his petition.
This appeal was not the end of Branzburg’s case. A second case arose from a story published on January 10, 1971, and involved him describing details about the usage of drugs in Frankfort, Kentucky. In order for him to accurately report this story, he had to spend two weeks interviewing dozens of drug users, and had even witnessed some of them smoking marijuana. Branzburg found himself again subpoenaed to testify on the use and sale of drugs. An issued order protected the reporter from revealing confidential sources, but required him to answer questions about the criminal acts he observed. Branzburg once again refused to identify his sources, saying that his effectiveness as a reporter would be damaged if he revealed any identities. The Kentucky Court of Appeals denied his requests once again, and rejected his claim for the First Amendment privilege.
Branzburg claimed that in order to be a reporter, it is often required to hide a source or only publish part of the revealed information; if the sources were identified, then other potential informers would be deterred from sharing facts and therefore restrict the free flow of information protected by the First Amendment. The reporter also stated that he should not be forced to testify unless they possess essential information about an ongoing investigation, the information is only held by that source, and the need is compelling enough to override the First Amendment.
The legal issue in this case was whether requiring reporters to testify against their confidential sources violated the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court had to decide if newsmen responded to subpoenas the same as other citizens, and if they have an obligation to answer questions relevant to an investigation. Citizens generally have to comply with grand jury subpoenas, and neither the First Amendment nor other statutes protect citizens from disclosing confidential information to a grand jury. So, the jury needed to decide if reporters had to comply with citizen rules, or if they were exempt due to their privileged position. Multiple precedent cases addressed First Amendment guarantees to the individual as well as the government. Previously, cases addressing valid laws serving the public may be enforced against the press as they are against others. The Supreme Court established that a newspaper publisher does not hold special immunities from general laws. Branzburg v. Hayes started by citing three cases that established that a newspaper is not privileged. Associated Press v. NLRB, where the Supreme Court mandated that the Associated Press was not exempt from National Labor Relations Act requirements. Further, in Associated Press v. United States, the Supreme Court established that the First Amendment did not excuse newspapers from violating the Sherman Act. Similarly, a newspaper could pay nondiscriminatory taxes (Grosjean v. American Press Co.)
The New York Times was involved in two cases that were also used as precedent for Branzburg. First, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan emphasized that the press is not free to publish anything; they cannot give reckless false information that could damage reputation. How does this case involve branzburg? Further, in New York Times Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court established that the press can be(the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a right to access special information not generally open to the public.)
In these precedent cases, the Supreme Court verified that there is no basis for maintaining that public interest in the law is inadequate to overrule the consequential, but indefinite, burden on news gathering that results from forcing reporters to answer relevant questions asked by a grand jury. Criminal investigations by a grand jury are essential to secure citizen’s safety and justified if for a government purpose (Bates v. Little Rock).
In part because of these cases cited, the court had a thorough analysis for their reasoning in Branzburg v. Hayes. First, the Supreme Court stated that with Branzburg not informing the grand jury of his confidential sources, his confidants were protected from criminal prosecution. This in itself cannot be protected by the First Amendment on the basis that writing about criminal actions is better than partaking in them. Next, the Court did note that Branzburg’s argument about the negative effect on the flow of news if confidential sources were betrayed was valid, but were unsure how many discouraged informers would be if reporters were forced to testify. Surely fewer sources would trust the media, but a number of them may not care about staying confidential. Looking at these two points, the Supreme Court stated that private informers should not be protected by newsmen because they need to be accountable to the public and persecuted for crimes. Reporters have no special privilege regarding subpoenas.
The Court finished their analysis of the case by stating that newsgathering has First Amendment guarantees, and investigations by a grand jury would present new issues for First Amendment resolutions. As long as the grand jury are asking the reporter about the confidential sources for justified reasons, and continue to operate under the First and Fifth Amendment, then subpoenaed reporters must comply with the jury.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment does not relieve a reporter from the obligation to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions regarding a criminal investigation. The constitution does not give privilege to a newsman, even if he makes a confidentiality agreement with an informer. The vote of the court was 5-4, with Byron White, Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell Jr., and William Rehnquist agreeing with the opinion of the court. Two dissenting opinions were filed, one written by William Douglas, and the other filed by Potter Stewart and joined by William Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall.
The decisions in the lower courts No. 70-85 (Branzburg v. Hayes and Branzburg v. Meigs) were affirmed. The Kentucky Court of Appeals stated that the fact that marijuana is a narcotic drug and illegal possession is a felony makes ____. Further, Branzburg observed violations while writing the story involved in Branzburg v. Meigs. (where does branzburg v. pound fit in?). Branzburg wrote about truths in which concerned the grand jury, and could have not kept his silence.