Lexplug logoLexplug

Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota
479 N.W.2d 387 (1992)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A promise of confidentiality made by a journalist to a source is legally enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel if the source relies on that promise to their detriment and injustice can only be avoided by enforcement.


Facts:

  • Dan Cohen, a political associate for the Independent-Republican gubernatorial candidate, contacted reporters from the Minneapolis Star and Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press during the 1982 election.
  • Cohen offered to provide public court records concerning Marlene Johnson, the DFL nominee for lieutenant governor, which detailed a prior shoplifting conviction and an unlawful assembly charge.
  • In exchange for the information, reporters for both newspapers gave Cohen a promise that his identity as the source would be kept confidential.
  • Relying on these promises of anonymity, Cohen provided the documents to the reporters.
  • Against the reporters' wishes, editors at both newspapers independently decided to overrule the promises of confidentiality, believing Cohen's identity was an essential part of the story.
  • The newspapers then published articles that included the information about Johnson and identified Dan Cohen as the source.
  • On the same day the articles were published, Cohen was fired from his job at an advertising firm.

Procedural Posture:

  • Dan Cohen sued Cowles Media Company and Northwest Publications, Inc. in a Minnesota trial court for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.
  • A jury returned a verdict for Cohen, awarding $200,000 in compensatory damages on both claims and $500,000 in punitive damages on the misrepresentation claim.
  • On appeal by the newspapers, the Minnesota Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the $200,000 compensatory award based on breach of contract but reversed the punitive damages award.
  • On further appeal by both parties, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Cohen could not recover under either breach of contract or promissory estoppel, concluding the latter was barred by the First Amendment.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that the First Amendment did not bar a promissory estoppel claim, and remanded the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court for reconsideration.

Locked

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 doctrine of promissory estoppel create a legal remedy for a news source when a newspaper breaches a promise of confidentiality, causing harm to the source?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Simonett

Yes, the doctrine of promissory estoppel creates a legal remedy for a news source when a newspaper breaches a promise of confidentiality. The First Amendment does not bar a promissory estoppel claim, which is a state law of general applicability, against the press. The court found that all elements of promissory estoppel were met: 1) The newspapers made a clear and definite promise of anonymity; 2) The newspapers intended for Cohen to rely on this promise, and he did so to his detriment by providing the information, which led to him losing his job; and 3) The promise must be enforced to prevent an injustice. The court concluded that denying Cohen any recourse for the broken promise, which violated a long-standing journalistic tradition upon which he relied, would be unjust, especially since the newspapers themselves acknowledged the importance of protecting sources. Therefore, the jury's award of damages was sustainable on this theory.



Analysis:

This decision establishes that promises of confidentiality made by journalists are not merely ethical obligations but can be legally binding under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The ruling clarifies that the First Amendment does not grant the press immunity from generally applicable laws, meaning news organizations can be held financially liable for breaking promises to sources. This precedent forces news organizations to consider the legal ramifications of their source-protection policies and may impact how journalists negotiate with and handle confidential sources in the future.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1992) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.