Reporters’ cases may be settled

The Supreme Court again Monday took no action on two appeals by news reporters seeking recognition of a “reporter’s privilege” that would shield their confidential sources from forced disclosure in a civil lawsuit. The Court may be holding the cases because their settlement is likely to occur soon, although the Justices are scheduled to consider them again on Thursday, according to the Court’s electronic docket..

In a letter to the Court’s Clerk last Tuesday, counsel for Wen Ho Lee, who has demanded to know the reporters’ sources for stories about a government probe of the computer scientist at a nuclear weapons laboratory, said that “…there have been recent settlement discussions with the Government in the underlying case, that resolution of the entire case may be imminent, but that there is not yet a final agreement.”

The letter was first disclosed by USA Today, in a story that can be found here.

The Court has considered twice, without acting on, the cases of Drogin v. Lee (05-969) and Thomas v. Lee (05-1114).

Four reporters have been held in contempt for refusing, under oath, to identify confidential sources upon whom they had relied in writing about a government investigation of Dr. Lee. The computer scientist was investigated by the government over possible mishandling of secret documents, and was charged with 59 counts of illegally downloading classified data from computers at the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory in New Mexico. He pleaded guilty to a single count, and the other 58 counts were dropped. He had been held 278 days, and he was sentenced to time served.

While the criminal charges were pending against him, Dr. Lee filed a civil damages lawsuit against officials of the Justice and Energy Departments and the FBI, claiming they had viiolated his rights under the federal Privacy Act by disclosing to the public facets of its investigation at Lso Alamos. It was as part of that lawsuit that he sought the identities of the reporters’ sources. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld the contempt convictions of four of the five reporters whose sources had been demanded. Those four then appealed to the Supreme Court.

(Thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing blog for the link to the USA Today story.)