Cohen v. Cowles Media Co
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. is a significant legal case that addresses the tension between the First Amendment's freedom of the press and individuals' rights to confidentiality and breach of contract claims. The case arose when Dan Cohen, a political consultant, was identified as a source of sensitive information by two newspapers, despite having been promised confidentiality. As a result of this disclosure, Cohen lost his job and subsequently sued the newspapers for breach of contract, resulting in a jury awarding him $200,000 in damages. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court later overturned this verdict, prioritizing First Amendment protections over contractual obligations. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a closely divided decision, directed the state court to reevaluate its ruling, emphasizing that the press does not receive special immunity from general laws. The majority opinion highlighted that enforcing state laws against the press does not require heightened scrutiny, while dissenting opinions raised concerns about the implications for political speech and press freedom. This case illustrates the complex interplay between media practices and legal accountability, shaping ongoing discussions about the boundaries of journalistic privilege and individual rights.
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
Date: June 24, 1991
Citation: 501 U.S. 663
Issue: Freedom of the press
Significance: The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect newspapers from civil suits for breaking a promise of confidentiality.
Dan Cohen, a political consultant, was fired from his job after two newspapers identified him as the source of information about a political candidate. Having been promised confidentiality, he sued for breach of contract. Based on the state’s contract law, the jury awarded him $200,000 in compensatory damages. The Minnesota supreme court, however, overturned the award, concluding that protection for the First Amendment’s freedom of the press outweighed the state’s interest in enforcing contractual obligations.
By a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court directed Minnesota’s high court to reconsider the judgment according to the relevant state laws. Speaking for the majority, Justice Byron R. White reasoned that the First Amendment did not give the publisher of a newspaper any special immunity from the enforcement of general laws and that the application of a general law against the press is not subject to any heightened scrutiny simply because its incidental effect is to make it more difficult for the press to gather and report the news. In contrast, the dissenters argued that an indirect restraint on the truthful reporting of political speech should be judged by the compelling state interest test.