Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.

Supreme Court of the United States
501 U.S. 663 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The First Amendment does not bar a plaintiff from recovering damages under a state's promissory estoppel law when a news organization breaches a promise of confidentiality given to a source in exchange for information. Such a law is one of general applicability and does not single out the press.

Facts:

During the 1982 Minnesota gubernatorial race, Dan Cohen, an associate of a Republican campaign, approached reporters from the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune.
Cohen offered to provide public court records concerning the Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Marlene Johnson.
He provided the information only after reporters from both newspapers promised to keep his identity confidential.
The documents revealed a dismissed 1969 charge for unlawful assembly and a vacated 1970 conviction for petit theft.
Despite their promises, editors at both newspapers independently decided to publish Cohen’s name as the source of the information.
On the day the stories ran identifying him, Cohen was fired by his employer.

Procedural Posture:

Dan Cohen sued the publishers of the Pioneer Press and Star Tribune in Minnesota state trial court, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract.
A jury returned a verdict for Cohen, awarding him $200,000 in compensatory and $500,000 in punitive damages.
On appeal by the newspapers, the Minnesota Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) upheld the compensatory damages award but reversed the punitive damages.
On further appeal by the newspapers, the Minnesota Supreme Court (the state's highest court) reversed the compensatory damages award.
The Minnesota Supreme Court reasoned that while a contract claim was inappropriate, a promissory estoppel claim might apply but would be barred in this case by the newspapers' First Amendment rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the First Amendment question.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the First Amendment's freedom of the press bar a plaintiff from recovering damages under a state promissory estoppel law for a newspaper's breach of a promise of confidentiality?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice White

No. The First Amendment does not prohibit a plaintiff from recovering damages under state promissory estoppel law for a newspaper's breach of a promise of confidentiality. The Minnesota doctrine of promissory estoppel is a law of general applicability that does not target or single out the press. The Court has long held that generally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the press has incidental effects on its ability to gather and report news. Unlike cases where the state itself defines the content of publications that trigger liability, here the legal obligation was self-imposed by the newspapers when they made the promise. Therefore, enforcing that promise through a generally applicable law is not subject to stricter First Amendment scrutiny.

Dissenting - Justice Blackmun

Yes. The use of a promissory estoppel claim to penalize the reporting of truthful information regarding a political campaign violates the First Amendment. The majority mischaracterizes the issue as one of general applicability; the liability is based entirely on the content of the speech—the publication of truthful information. This case is more analogous to Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, where a general law was not permitted to penalize protected speech. The controlling precedent should be Smith v. Daily Mail, which requires that any punishment of lawfully obtained, truthful information must be justified by a state interest 'of the highest order,' a standard not met here.

Dissenting - Justice Souter

Yes. The state's interest in enforcing a newspaper's promise of confidentiality is insufficient to outweigh the First Amendment interest in the unfettered publication of newsworthy information. The fact that promissory estoppel is a law of general applicability is not dispositive; a balancing of competing interests is required when such laws burden speech. The public's interest in knowing the source of political information is paramount, as freedom of the press exists to create a better-informed citizenry. The identity of Cohen was newsworthy information relevant to a gubernatorial election, and the value of its publication outweighs the state's interest in enforcing the promise.

Analysis:

This decision establishes that journalists and news organizations are not shielded by the First Amendment from the consequences of breaking promises under generally applicable state laws like promissory estoppel. It draws a crucial line between laws that specifically target the press for punishment based on content (which receive high scrutiny) and neutral laws that apply to everyone. The ruling provides sources with a legal tool to enforce promises of confidentiality, potentially altering the power dynamic in journalist-source relationships and encouraging news organizations to be more cautious when offering anonymity.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"