BRANZBURG V HAYES 408 U.S 665 1972 BRANZBURG V HAYES U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL COMMUNICATIONS U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE THIS RULING DENIED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT GAVE REPORTERS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP THEIR SOURCES SECRET THIS RULING LED SEVERAL STATES TO ENACT SHIELD LAWS TO PROTECT THE PRESS BUT CONGRESS REFUSED TO PASS A NATIONAL VERSION BACKGROUND IN 1969 PAUL BRANZBURG A REPORTER FOR THE LOUISVILLE COURIER JOURNAL WROTE A STORY ABOUT TWO ILLEGAL DRUG MAKERS A KENTUCKY GRAND JURY DEMANDED THAT BRANZBURG GIVE TO THE AUTHORITIES ALL THE INFORMATION HE HAD COLLECTED ON DRUG MAKING ACTIVITIES CLAIMING THAT THIS DEMAND VIOLATED HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH BRANZBURG SUED THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON FEBRUARY 22 23 1972 AND DECIDED ON JUNE 29 1972 BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 4 JUSTICE BYRON WHITE REPRESENTED THE MAJORITY WITH JUSTICES POTTER STEWART WILLIAM BRENNAN JR THURGOOD MARSHALL AND WILLIAM DOUGLAS DISSENTING THE COURT HELD THAT A REPORTER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO A GRAND JURY WAS THE SAME AS THAT OF ANY COMMON CITIZEN AND THAT ANY ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR REPORTERS COULD ONLY BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH LEGISLATION THE DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THAT ACCURATE AND COMPLETE NEWS GATHERING REQUIRED THAT SOURCES BE ASSURED OF CONFIDENTIALITY TO NEGLECT THAT PRINCIPLE THEY SAID COULD COMPROMISE THE PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO INFORMATION EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF COURSE THE PRESS HAS THE RIGHT TO ABIDE BY ITS AGREEMENT NOT TO PUBLISH ALL THE INFORMATION IT HAS BUT THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD NEWS IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A FIRST AMENDMENT EXEMPTION FROM THE ORDINARY DUTY OF ALL OTHER CITIZENS TO FURNISH RELEVANT APPLICABLE INFORMATION TO A GRAND JURY PERFORMING AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC FUNCTION PRIVATE RESTRAINTS ON THE FLOW OF INFORMATION ARE NOT SO FAVORED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT THEY OVERRIDE ALL OTHER PUBLIC INTERESTS
