No. The promise wasn't a legal contract like a business deal. It was an ethical understanding based on trust between a reporter and a source. Forcing the newspaper to pay for breaking this kind of promise would violate its First Amendment right to freedom of the press. The court had to weigh Cohen's lost job against the newspaper's right to decide what's important for the public to know, and in this political situation, freedom of the press won.

Yes. A promise is a promise. The newspapers made a deal, they broke it, and it caused someone to lose their job. They should have to pay for the damage they caused, just like anyone else who breaks an agreement. Freedom of the press shouldn't be an excuse for newspapers to be above the law.

Yes. All the parts of a legal contract were there, and the newspapers clearly broke it. They shouldn't be able to use the First Amendment as a shield to get out of paying for the harm they caused. This decision will make people afraid to give information to the press, which hurts everyone.

No, the promise isn't legally binding in this case. Even though it's morally wrong to break a promise, we don't think the reporters and Cohen were trying to make a legal agreement like a business contract. It was more like a gentleman's agreement. Also, if we forced newspapers to keep these kinds of promises, it might make them too scared to report important political news. This was about an election, which is really important for free speech. So, in this case, the newspapers' right to free speech is more important than the promise they made.

I disagree. I think the newspapers should have to keep their promise just like everyone else. They made a deal to get information, and when they broke that deal, Cohen lost his job. If we let newspapers break promises whenever they want, people might stop giving them important information. It's not fair that newspapers can demand to keep their sources secret but then reveal other people's secrets whenever they want. Free speech is important, but it shouldn't be an excuse to break promises.

I agree with Justice Yetka. I also think the majority is wrong to say there wasn't a real agreement between Cohen and the reporters. All the parts of a legal contract were there. By letting the newspapers off the hook, we're actually making it harder for people to trust the press with important information. This decision gives newspapers a special privilege that nobody else gets, and that's not right.

No. A promise of confidentiality between a reporter and a source is not a legally enforceable contract, nor can it be enforced under promissory estoppel in this case. The relationship between a source and a reporter is based on a moral and ethical obligation of trust, not the commercial intent required for a contract. While promissory estoppel might apply in some situations, here, enforcing the promise would require the court to second-guess the newspapers' editorial judgments about newsworthiness, which would impermissibly interfere with their First Amendment rights. The court must balance the press's constitutional rights against the common law interest in enforcing a promise, and in the context of a political campaign, the First Amendment prevails, leaving the parties to rely on their mutual trust.

Yes. The newspapers should be held liable for breaking their promise. They made a clear promise of confidentiality in exchange for newsworthy information, which constitutes a valid contract. When they breached that promise, Cohen suffered a direct financial loss. The First Amendment is being misused to create a special privilege for the press, exempting them from the legal obligations that apply to all other citizens and entities. This decision offends the fundamental principle of equality under the law and will unfortunately discourage future sources from providing important information to the public.

Yes. A valid contract was formed and breached, and the media should not be immune from liability. The majority incorrectly concluded that the parties did not intend to form a contract, despite clear promises that were intended to be kept. The First Amendment is not relevant to what is a straightforward breach of contract case. By granting the media immunity, this decision will ultimately inhibit the free flow of information by causing potential sources to distrust reporters and remain silent.

No. The promise of confidentiality, while morally and ethically binding, does not constitute a legally enforceable contract under these circumstances because it conflicts with the newspapers' First Amendment rights. We reject the application of contract law to this situation because the parties do not typically intend to create a legally binding agreement in the context of news gathering. The exchange of information for a promise of confidentiality is more akin to a moral commitment than a legal contract. Additionally, we find that enforcing such a promise under a theory of promissory estoppel would violate the newspapers' First Amendment rights in this case. The context of political reporting during an election campaign is at the core of First Amendment protections, and imposing legal liability for breaking a promise of confidentiality in this context would chill public debate. While there may be instances where enforcing such a promise could outweigh First Amendment concerns, this is not such a case. Therefore, we reverse the judgment for the plaintiff.

I dissent because I believe the newspapers should be held accountable for their broken promise under established contract law principles. The press made a promise in exchange for newsworthy information, and Cohen suffered direct consequences when that promise was broken. Allowing the press to hide behind the First Amendment to avoid liability sets a dangerous precedent that could discourage potential news sources from coming forward with important information. This decision creates an unjust double standard, where the press can demand confidentiality for its sources but violate its own promises of confidentiality with impunity. The First Amendment should not be used as a shield to avoid responsibility for broken promises.

I join Justice Yetka's dissent and further argue that the majority's analysis incorrectly concludes that the parties did not intend to create a contract, despite the presence of all elements of a legal contract. The court of appeals correctly applied contract law to this situation, and I would affirm their decision. By allowing the media to escape liability for a clear breach of contract under the guise of First Amendment protection, the majority's decision actually inhibits the objectives of the First Amendment by discouraging potential sources from providing information on public matters. This ruling creates an unjustified special privilege for the press that is denied to other citizens.

Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot