Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation et al

Filing 238

MOTION to File Amicus Brief . Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. (Attachments: #1 Amici Curiae Brief)(Decell, Caroline)

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238 Filed 03/13/19 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-03501-JGK

THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, et al.,
Defendants.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF BY THE KNIGHT FIRST
AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, THE REPORTERS
COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION IN SUPPORT OF WIKILEAKS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University (“Knight Institute”), the
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (“Reporters Committee”), and the American Civil
Liberties Union (“ACLU”) respectfully move for leave to file the accompanying amici curiae brief
in support of Defendant WikiLeaks’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.
See ECF No. 224. WikiLeaks consents to the filing of the brief. Counsel for Plaintiff Democratic
National Committee has not responded to amici’s request for consent.
District courts have broad discretion to permit the filing of an amicus brief. In re GLG Life
Tech. Corp. Sec. Litig., 287 F.R.D. 262, 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Auto. Club of N.Y. Inc. v. Port Auth.
of N.Y. & N.J., No. 11 Civ. 6746, 2011 WL 5865296, at *1–2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2011); United
States v. Ahmed, 788 F. Supp. 196, 198 n.1 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d 980 F.2d 161 (2d Cir. 1992). “An
amicus brief should normally be allowed . . . when the amicus has unique information or
perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the party are able to
provide.” Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie Cty. v. Kempthorne, 471 F. Supp. 2d 295, 311

1

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238 Filed 03/13/19 Page 2 of 5

(W.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063
(7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted)).
Courts in this district have frequently permitted the filing of amicus briefs relevant to their
consideration of issues presented by the cases before them. See, e.g., In re Lehman Bros. Holdings
Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 08-13555, 2015 WL 7194609, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015); C & A
Carbone, Inc. v. Cty. of Rockland, N.Y., No. 08 Civ. 6459, 2014 WL 1202699, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 24, 2014); United States v. Apple, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 2826, 2012 WL 3195653, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 6, 2012).
Amici have expertise in the First Amendment and seek to brief the Court on an important
constitutional question raised by this case: namely, whether an act of publication that would
otherwise be protected by the First Amendment loses that protection simply because a source
acquired the published information unlawfully, or because the publishing party communicated
with the source about the receipt or publication of that information. This question has significant
implications for freedom of the press. Investigative and national security reporters routinely rely
on First Amendment protection in publishing stories of considerable public concern based on
leaked or stolen information. Amici write to provide examples of those stories against the backdrop
of relevant Supreme Court precedent, and to urge this Court to uphold the First Amendment
protection on which such robust and uninhibited reporting depends.
The Knight Institute is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that defends the freedoms
of speech and the press in the digital age through strategic litigation, research, and public
education. The Knight Institute aims to promote a system of free expression that is open and
inclusive, that broadens and elevates public discourse, and that fosters creativity, accountability,
and effective self-government. Since its founding in 2016, the Knight Institute has brought and

2

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238 Filed 03/13/19 Page 3 of 5

participated as amicus in a number of cases, including cases in this Court, raising important First
Amendment questions.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is an unincorporated nonprofit
association. The Reporters Committee was founded by leading journalists and media lawyers in
1970 when the nation’s news media faced an unprecedented wave of government subpoenas
forcing reporters to name confidential sources. Today, its attorneys provide pro bono legal
representation, amicus curiae support, and other legal resources to protect First Amendment
freedoms and the newsgathering rights of journalists.
The ACLU is a nationwide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with nearly 2 million
members dedicated to defending the principles embodied in the Constitution and our nation’s civil
rights laws. For nearly a century, the ACLU has been at the forefront of efforts nationwide to
protect the full array of civil rights and civil liberties. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has
frequently appeared before this Court in First Amendment cases, both as direct counsel and as
amicus curiae.
The Knight Institute, Reporters Committee, and ACLU respectfully request leave from this
Court to file the accompanying brief addressing a First Amendment question raised in this case.

3

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238 Filed 03/13/19 Page 4 of 5

March 13, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce D. Brown
Katie Townsend
Gabriel Rottman
Caitlin Vogus
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press
1156 15th Street, NW, Suite 1020
Washington, D.C. 20005
[phone]
[e-mail]

/s/ Carrie DeCell
Carrie DeCell (CD-0731)
Adi Kamdar
Alex Abdo (AA-0527)
Jameel Jaffer (JJ-4653)
Knight First Amendment Institute
at Columbia University
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 302
New York, NY 10115
[phone]
[e-mail]
Ben Wizner
Esha Bhandari
Brett Max Kaufman
Dror Ladin
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
[phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Amici Curiae

4

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238 Filed 03/13/19 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 13, 2019, this document was filed through the Court’s
Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system and thus copies will be sent electronically to the registered
participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).

/s/ Carrie DeCell
Carrie DeCell

5

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-03501-JGK

THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, et al.,
Defendants.

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS, AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION IN SUPPORT OF
WIKILEAKS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Bruce D. Brown
Katie Townsend
Gabriel Rottman
Caitlin Vogus
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press
1156 15th Street, NW, Suite 1020
Washington, D.C. 20005
[phone]
[e-mail]

Carrie DeCell
Adi Kamdar
Alex Abdo
Jameel Jaffer
Knight First Amendment Institute
at Columbia University
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 302
New York, NY 10115
[phone]
[e-mail]
Ben Wizner
Esha Bhandari
Brett Max Kaufman
Dror Ladin
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
[phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Amici Curiae

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 2 of 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................... ii
INTERESTS OF AMICI ............................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 2
ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................................. 3
I.

An act of publication that would otherwise be protected by the First
Amendment does not lose that protection simply because a source acquired
the published information unlawfully. ........................................................................ 3

II.

The press relies on this protection to inform the public about matters of public
concern. ..................................................................................................................... 7
A.

Post-9/11 reporting on torture and mass surveillance. ..................................... 7

B.

Watergate, COINTELPRO, and the Church and Pike Committees.................. 9

C.

Reporting on corporate malfeasance and other non–national security
stories. ......................................................................................................... 11

CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................... 12
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................... 14

i

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 3 of 19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001)........................................................................ 3, 5, 6, 7
Boehner v. McDermott, 484 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ............................................................... 6
Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975) ......................................................................... 4
Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989) ................................................................................. 7
Jean v. Mass. State Police, 492 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2007) ........................................................... 6, 7
Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) ................................................... 6, 7
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) ......................................................... 4
Smith v. Daily Mail Publ’g Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979) .................................................................... 4
United States v. Ehrlichman, 546 F.2d 910 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ....................................................... 4
United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1988) ............................................................. 6
Zerilli v. Evening News Ass’n, 628 F.2d 217 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ..................................................... 8
Statutes
Pub. L. No. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436 (2008) ................................................................................ 9
Pub. L. No. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783 (1978) .................................................................................. 11
Other Authorities
Betty Medsger, Remembering an Earlier Time When a Theft Unmasked
Government Surveillance, Wash. Post (Jan. 10, 2014), https://perma.cc/T85B3UT6................................................................................................................................... 11
Brian Stelter, Stories About NSA Surveillance, Snowden Leaks Win Pulitzers for
Two News Groups, CNN (Apr. 15, 2014), https://perma.cc/EZ4P-MKS3 ............................ 10
Charlie Savage, Whistle-Blower on N.S.A. Wiretapping Is Set To Keep Law
License, N.Y. Times (July 12, 2016), https://perma.cc/7JF2-5KZV ....................................... 9
Dana Priest, CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons, Wash. Post (Nov. 2,
2005), https://perma.cc/ZV9V-7ZED .................................................................................... 8

ii

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 4 of 19

David Von Drehle, FBI’s No. 2 Was ‘Deep Throat’: Mark Felt Ends 30-Year
Mystery of The Post’s Watergate Source, Wash. Post (June 1, 2005),
https://perma.cc/2QQV-U2AD ............................................................................................ 10
Douglas Martin, Merrell Williams Jr., Paralegal Who Bared Big Tobacco, Dies at
72, N.Y. Times (Nov. 26, 2013), https://perma.cc/R5T4-BXBK .......................................... 12
Ellen Nakashima, Congressional Action on NSA Is a Milestone in the Post-9/11
World, Wash. Post. (June 2, 2015), https://perma.cc/8RUV-EGZ5 ...................................... 10
Emma Best, The FBI Investigated the Village Voice and RCFP for Espionage in
1976, Muckrock (Jan. 2, 2019), https://perma.cc/9APD-QYLR ........................................... 11
Eric Lipton & Julie Creswell, Panama Papers Show How Rich United States
Clients Hid Millions Abroad, N.Y. Times (June 5, 2016),
https://perma.cc/9H6Z-XTBT.............................................................................................. 12
Frederick Obermaier et al., About the Panama Papers, Süddeutsche Zeitung,
https://perma.cc/P86A-7W5Y.............................................................................................. 12
Hamish Boland-Rudder & Will Fitzgibbon, Panama Papers: German Police Raid
Deutsche Bank Headquarters Over Alleged Money Laundering, Int’l
Consortium of Investigative Journalists (Nov. 29, 2018),
https://perma.cc/C6AK-2R7F .............................................................................................. 13
Indictment, United States v. Owens, No. 18-cr-693 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 27,
2018), https://perma.cc/88YE-FFZ4 .................................................................................... 13
James Risen & Eric Lichtblau, Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,
N.Y. Times (Dec. 16, 2005), https://perma.cc/UU4J-YE9U ................................................... 9
Max Holland, The Myth of Deep Throat, Politico Magazine (Sept. 10, 2017),
https://perma.cc/KUK8-RTUH ............................................................................................ 10
Neil A. Lewis & Eric Schmitt, Inquiry Finds Abuses at Guantánamo Bay, N.Y.
Times (May 1, 2005), https://perma.cc/D579-MSJF .............................................................. 9
On Secrets, When In Doubt, Publish, Wash. Post (July 9, 2006),
https://perma.cc/97UM-LQKV ............................................................................................ 10
Parliament Examines SWIFT II Agreement, Euro. Parl. (Feb. 7, 2010),
https://perma.cc/8Z5Y-JMLK.............................................................................................. 10
Robert F. Worth, U.S. To Abandon Abu Ghraib and Move Prisoners to a New
Center, N.Y. Times (Mar. 10, 2006), https://perma.cc/7NJ9-TZX3. ...................................... 9
Robert Pear, President Reagan Pardons 2 Ex-F.B.I. Officials in 1970’s Break-Ins,
N.Y. Times (Apr. 18, 1981), https://perma.cc/7BEB-G734 .................................................. 11

iii

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 5 of 19

The Panama Papers: Exposing the Rogue Offshore Finance Industry, Int’l
Consortium of Investigative Journalists, https://perma.cc/AX4W-ESPY.............................. 13
Todd Richissin, Soldiers’ Warnings Ignored, Balt. Sun (May 9, 2004),
https://perma.cc/JK54-XJ94 .................................................................................................. 9

iv

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 6 of 19

INTERESTS OF AMICI
Amici are organizations with expertise in the First Amendment that seek to brief the Court
on an important constitutional question raised by this case with significant implications for
freedom of the press.
The Knight Institute is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that defends the freedoms
of speech and the press in the digital age through strategic litigation, research, and public
education. The Knight Institute aims to promote a system of free expression that is open and
inclusive, that broadens and elevates public discourse, and that fosters creativity, accountability,
and effective self-government. Since its founding in 2016, the Knight Institute has brought and
participated as amicus in a number of cases, including cases in this Court, raising important First
Amendment questions.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is an unincorporated nonprofit
association. The Reporters Committee was founded by leading journalists and media lawyers in
1970 when the nation’s news media faced an unprecedented wave of government subpoenas
forcing reporters to name confidential sources. Today, its attorneys provide pro bono legal
representation, amicus curiae support, and other legal resources to protect First Amendment
freedoms and the newsgathering rights of journalists.
The ACLU is a nationwide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with nearly 2 million
members dedicated to defending the principles embodied in the Constitution and our nation’s civil
rights laws. For nearly a century, the ACLU has been at the forefront of efforts nationwide to
protect the full array of civil rights and civil liberties. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has
frequently appeared before this Court in First Amendment cases, both as direct counsel and as
amicus curiae.

1

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 7 of 19

INTRODUCTION
The Democratic National Committee’s (“DNC”) Second Amended Complaint alleges
illegal activity carried out by more than a dozen individuals and entities in the lead-up to the 2016
presidential election. Collectively, the allegations describe a broad effort by the Russian
government to interfere in the United States’ democratic process. The gravamen of the charges
against WikiLeaks, however, is that WikiLeaks publicly released documents that alleged Russian
intelligence operatives stole from the DNC,1 and that WikiLeaks communicated with those
operatives in the period between theft and publication about the delivery of the documents to
WikiLeaks and the timing of their publication.2 The DNC has not alleged that WikiLeaks was
involved in the initial theft of the documents. WikiLeaks has moved to dismiss the DNC’s charges,
in part on First Amendment grounds. Amici write to emphasize one critical point in support of
WikiLeaks’ motion to dismiss: An act of publication that would otherwise be protected by the First
Amendment does not lose that protection simply because a source acquired the published
information unlawfully, or because the publishing party communicated with the source about the
receipt or publication of that information.
In a series of cases over the last five decades, the Supreme Court has recognized broad
protection for the publication of truthful information of public concern, and it has extended that
protection to the publication of information that was acquired unlawfully in the first instance, so
long as the publishing party was “not involved in the initial illegality.” Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532
U.S. 514, 529 (2001). The press has relied on this protection to report on major stories—ranging

1

See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19–22, 83, 126, 147, 156, 175, 203, 249, 253, 280–81, 287–88, 311–12,

332, 339, 358.
2

See id. ¶¶ 17, 78, 126, 149, 150–51, 154, 282–83, 290, 306–07, 356–59, 371.

2

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 8 of 19

from the Pentagon Papers to the Panama Papers—that inform the public and hold the powerful to
account. A ruling that narrowed this protection could jeopardize the well-established legal
framework that has made much important investigative and national security journalism possible.
ARGUMENT
I.

An act of publication that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment
does not lose that protection simply because a source acquired the published
information unlawfully.
The First Amendment serves the public’s interest in receiving the information necessary

“to vote intelligently [and] to register opinions on the administration of government.” Cox Broad.
Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 492 (1975). Accordingly, as the Supreme Court emphasized in Smith
v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., “state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom
can satisfy constitutional standards . . . absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order.”
443 U.S. 97, 102–103 (1979). The Court has repeatedly held that the unlawful acquisition or
release of information by a source does not vitiate First Amendment protection of the subsequent
publication of that information by a party not involved in the initial illegality.
The Court embraced this principle most famously in the Pentagon Papers case. There, the
government attempted to prevent two newspapers from publishing a top-secret study about the
Vietnam War, which military analyst Daniel Ellsberg had copied and distributed without
authorization. See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) (per curiam);
see also United States v. Ehrlichman, 546 F.2d 910, 914 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Notwithstanding the
government’s declared national security interest in preventing further disclosure of the classified
documents, the Court held that the government could not constitutionally seek to enjoin the
newspapers from publishing them. See New York Times, 403 U.S. at 714; id. at 728 (Stewart, J.,
concurring) (“[A]n enlightened citizenry” relies on “an informed and free press.”). Although the

3

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 9 of 19

Pentagon Papers case specifically addressed prior restraints on publication, the Supreme Court
has characterized it broadly as having “upheld the right of the press to publish information of great
public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party.” Bartnicki, 532 U.S. at 528.
The Supreme Court explicitly reaffirmed this right in Bartnicki v. Vopper. See 532 U.S. at
535. In that case, an unknown person had illegally intercepted a phone call between two union
representatives and placed a tape recording of the call in the mailbox of Jack Yocum, the head of
an organization opposed to the union’s efforts. Id. at 518–19. Yocum gave the tape to Fred Vopper,
a radio commentator and fellow union critic. Id. at 519. Vopper played the tape on his show,
another radio station broadcast it, and a local newspaper published its contents. Id. The union
representatives sued Yocum and those who broadcast and published the tape for violating federal
and state wiretap laws, id. at 520, which prohibited the willful disclosure of the contents of a wire
communication by someone who knew or had reason to know that the communication was
unlawfully intercepted, id. at 524.
Though each defendant in Bartnicki had violated the wiretap laws, the Court concluded
that the strong constitutional “interest in publishing matters of public importance” outweighed the
privacy interests that would be served by enforcing the laws against the defendants. Id. at 534.
Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the media defendants and Yocum did not lose First
Amendment protection simply because the source had intercepted the communication unlawfully.
As long as subsequent speakers were “not involved in the initial illegality,” id. at 529, the Court
explained, “a stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield
from speech about a matter of public concern,” id. at 535.3

3

The laws at issue in Bartnicki did not prohibit the receipt of unlawfully intercepted information, but

the same logic would have applied even if they had, because receipt is a necessary antecedent to publication.

4

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 10 of 19

Notably, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protected the broadcasts and
publication in Bartnicki even though the defendants knew or should have known that the
underlying phone call had been intercepted unlawfully. See id. at 517–18 (noting that defendants
“did know—or at least had reason to know” that the communication was unlawfully intercepted);
see also Jean v. Mass. State Police, 492 F.3d 24, 32 (1st Cir. 2007) (noting that website operator
“disclosed to others the contents of an oral communication that she knew had been recorded
illegally”); Boehner v. McDermott, 484 F.3d 573, 585 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Sentelle, J., dissenting)
(noting, in a section joined by a majority of the en banc panel, a “lack of constitutional significance
of the communicator’s knowledge that the interception had been unlawfully conducted”).
Moreover, although the defendants in Bartnicki did not know the identity of their source, the
Court’s holding makes clear that they would not have lost First Amendment protection even if they
did. See Bartnicki, 532 U.S. at 520–30; see also Jean, 492 F.3d at 30 (“[W]here, as here, the
identity of the interceptor is known, there is even less justification for punishing a subsequent
publisher than there was in Bartnicki.”).
Bartnicki joins other cases in which the Supreme Court has recognized constitutional
protection for the publication of information despite a source’s illegal conduct. In Landmark
Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, for example, the Court held that the First Amendment protected
the publication of the name of a state judge undergoing a disciplinary investigation, despite a
statute that criminalized the disclosure. 435 U.S. 829, 831 (1978). Both the newspaper and its
unknown sources had violated the law in disclosing the judge’s name, but the Court concluded that

See, e.g., United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1080–85 (4th Cir. 1988) (Wilkinson, J., concurring)
(emphasizing that the Espionage Act, which prohibits the receipt of confidential information, would likely
not apply to press organizations that receive classified material).

5

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 11 of 19

the newspaper could not be held liable because the information was of public concern and the
newspaper was not involved in the initial unlawful acquisition of that information. See id. at 837–
39. In Florida Star v. B.J.F., the Court held that the First Amendment protected a newspaper’s
publication of a rape victim’s name, which a sheriff’s department had posted publicly in its press
room. 491 U.S. 524, 527 (1989). Both the department and the newspaper had violated a statutory
prohibition on the disclosure of the names of rape victims, id. at 536, but the Court concluded that
the newspaper could not be held liable for its publication of the unlawfully released information,
id. at 541. Thus, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects the
right to publish information of public concern despite a “defect in [the] chain” from source to
publication. Bartnicki, 532 U.S at 528 (citation omitted).
Courts have explicitly rejected efforts to circumvent this First Amendment protection by
plaintiffs seeking to attach liability not directly to the publication of unlawfully acquired
information, but to communication with its source. Mere communication with a source of
unlawfully acquired information does not amount to a constitutionally punishable conspiracy,
courts have held, so long as the publishing party was “not involved in the initial illegality.”
Bartnicki, 532 U.S. at 529. In Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, for instance, political activist
Mary Jean posted on her personal website an illegally recorded video of police officers conducting
a warrantless search of a house. 492 F.3d at 25. Attempting to distinguish Bartnicki, the police
officers argued that Jean was in “active collaboration” with the source of the unlawfully acquired
information, because her communication with the source and knowledge of the video’s illegality
amounted to a violation of a conspiracy provision in Massachusetts’ wiretap law. Id. at 30–31.
Applying Bartnicki, the First Circuit considered Jean’s “active” collaboration with her source
irrelevant and held that the wiretap statute and its conspiracy provision, as applied, ran afoul of the

6

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 12 of 19

First Amendment. Id. at 31–32. Similarly, in Zerilli v. Evening News Association, the plaintiffs
alleged that federal officials had unlawfully intercepted their communications and that the Detroit
News had conspired with the officials to receive and publish those communications. 628 F.2d 217,
219 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of the claim against the newspaper, in
part because “finding the newspaper liable [for conspiracy] in the present case would amount to
holding a newspaper liable in damages for uncovering and publishing information that it deems
newsworthy. The values served by a free and vigilant press militate against such a result.” Id. at
224.
II.

The press relies on this protection to inform the public about matters of public
concern.
The First Amendment protection described above helps to ensure that the public obtains

the information it needs to understand and evaluate government policy and to hold the powerful
accountable for their actions. This protection has been crucial to the ability of the press to inform
the public about matters of public concern. Without it, era-defining stories about Watergate, the
Vietnam War, post-9/11 counterterrorism policy, and recent global financial scandals might never
have been written.
A.

Post-9/11 reporting on torture and mass surveillance.

Numerous major revelations of illegal or potentially illegal U.S. government conduct
following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were based on information from sources
who may have violated the law in disclosing government secrets.
Torture: Much of the initial reporting around torture, both at the military prison at Abu
Ghraib in the Iraq War and as part of the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program, relied on
anonymous sources disclosing highly classified information. See, e.g., Dana Priest, CIA Holds
Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons, Wash. Post (Nov. 2, 2005), https://perma.cc/ZV9V-7ZED

7

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 13 of 19

(revealing existence and locations of CIA “black site” prisons); Neil A. Lewis & Eric Schmitt,
Inquiry Finds Abuses at Guantánamo Bay, N.Y. Times (May 1, 2005), https://perma.cc/D579MSJF (reporting on internal Pentagon inquiry prompted by public release of FBI memorandums
expressing concern with interrogation tactics); Todd Richissin, Soldiers’ Warnings Ignored, Balt.
Sun (May 9, 2004), https://perma.cc/JK54-XJ94 (detailing prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib disclosed
by two anonymous Army whistleblowers). This reporting prompted congressional and military
investigations, military prosecutions, and the closure of the Abu Ghraib prison. See Robert F.
Worth, U.S. To Abandon Abu Ghraib and Move Prisoners to a New Center, N.Y. Times (Mar. 10,
2006), https://perma.cc/7NJ9-TZX3.
Warrantless Wiretapping: In 2005, New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric
Lichtblau disclosed the existence of what the George W. Bush administration called the “Terrorist
Surveillance Program,” under which the National Security Agency (“NSA”) wiretapped
communications between U.S. persons and non-U.S. persons overseas without a warrant and
mistakenly swept in purely domestic communications. James Risen & Eric Lichtblau, Bush Lets
U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts, N.Y. Times (Dec. 16, 2005), https://perma.cc/UU4J-YE9U.
The article, based in part on an anonymous tip by a Justice Department lawyer later identified as
Thomas Tamm, won a Pulitzer Prize and led to extensive public debate over the program. See
Charlie Savage, Whistle-Blower on N.S.A. Wiretapping Is Set To Keep Law License, N.Y. Times
(July 12, 2016), https://perma.cc/7JF2-5KZV. It also led Congress to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”). Pub. L. No. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436 (2008).
Mass Surveillance: Groundbreaking stories about the NSA’s secret surveillance
programs—stories that earned the Guardian and the Washington Post the Pulitzer Prize for public
service—were based on documents leaked by former government contractor Edward Snowden.

8

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 14 of 19

Brian Stelter, Stories About NSA Surveillance, Snowden Leaks Win Pulitzers for Two News
Groups, CNN (Apr. 15, 2014), https://perma.cc/EZ4P-MKS3. This reporting informed the public
about the excesses and inadequate oversight of U.S. surveillance, leading to worldwide debate and
legislative reforms. See Ellen Nakashima, Congressional Action on NSA Is a Milestone in the Post9/11 World, Wash. Post. (June 2, 2015), https://perma.cc/8RUV-EGZ5 (discussing enactment of
the USA Freedom Act, Pub. L. No. 114-23, 129 Stat. 268 (2015)).
Financial Surveillance: In June 2006, numerous outlets revealed the existence of the CIArun “Terrorist Finance Tracking Program,” which collected records en masse from a Belgian
cooperative, known as SWIFT, that facilitates international financial transactions. Although
elements of the program had been reported years before, the disclosure led to a renegotiated
agreement with the cooperative and extensive public debate about the propriety of the reporting
itself. See, e.g., On Secrets, When in Doubt, Publish, Wash. Post (July 9, 2006),
https://perma.cc/97UM-LQKV; Parliament Examines SWIFT II Agreement, Euro. Parl. (Feb. 7,
2010), https://perma.cc/8Z5Y-JMLK.
B.

Watergate, COINTELPRO, and the Church and Pike Committees.

Much of the reporting that ultimately led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation in the
Watergate scandal also relied on anonymous sources disclosing government secrets. See David
Von Drehle, FBI’s No. 2 Was ‘Deep Throat’: Mark Felt Ends 30-Year Mystery of The Post’s
Watergate Source, Wash. Post (June 1, 2005), https://perma.cc/2QQV-U2AD. Mark Felt, deputy
director of the FBI and the most famous Watergate secret source, known as “Deep Throat,” took
extensive precautions to hide his identity precisely because the leaks were under criminal
investigation. Id.; see Max Holland, The Myth of Deep Throat, Politico Magazine (Sept. 10, 2017),
https://perma.cc/KUK8-RTUH.

9

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 15 of 19

Ironically, Felt himself was convicted, and later pardoned, for ordering illegal “black bag”
searches as part of COINTELPRO, a secret FBI program that the press only discovered after
receiving FBI files that had been acquired illegally by a source. See Robert Pear, President Reagan
Pardons 2 Ex-F.B.I. Officials in 1970’s Break-Ins, N.Y. Times (Apr. 18, 1981),
https://perma.cc/7BEB-G734. Short for “counter-intelligence program,” COINTELPRO was an
illegal surveillance and harassment operation targeted at political activists and dissidents during
the late 1960s and early 1970s. It came to light only after an activist group called the “Citizens’
Commission to Investigate the FBI” physically broke into an FBI office and stole files in 1971.
See Betty Medsger, Remembering an Earlier Time When a Theft Unmasked Government
Surveillance, Wash. Post (Jan. 10, 2014), https://perma.cc/T85B-3UT6.
The COINTELPRO break-in and disclosure in part led to watershed congressional
investigations into civil liberties abuses by intelligence agencies during the Cold War; the creation
of dedicated intelligence oversight committees in the House of Representatives and Senate; and
the passage of FISA, which, for the first time, created a statutory framework for court review of
national security surveillance. Pub. L. No. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783 (1978).
Indeed, the sealed findings of one of those investigative committees, chaired by
Representative Otis Pike, were made public only after they were leaked to CBS correspondent
Daniel Schorr, who gave them to the Village Voice to publish. Recently disclosed documents
suggest that amicus Reporters Committee, to which Schorr donated any proceeds from the
publication of the Pike Committee report, may itself have been investigated by the FBI for
espionage. See Emma Best, The FBI Investigated the Village Voice and RCFP for Espionage in
1976, Muckrock (Jan. 2, 2019), https://perma.cc/9APD-QYLR.

10

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 16 of 19

C.

Reporting on corporate malfeasance and other non–national security stories.

Though there are myriad other examples of illegally acquired or disclosed material forming
the basis for national security reporting in the public interest—including the aforementioned
Pentagon Papers—reliance on material that sources may have illegally acquired is not limited to
the national security context.
For example, in the 1990s, the $246 billion settlement of a lawsuit brought by dozens of
states against the four largest American tobacco companies for misrepresenting the health risks of
smoking resulted directly from the theft of thousands of pages of internal documents by a paralegal
for a law firm representing the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. The documents were
“debated in Congress, entered into court proceedings, posted on the Internet and printed in The
New York Times.” Douglas Martin, Merrell Williams Jr., Paralegal Who Bared Big Tobacco,
Dies at 72, N.Y. Times (Nov. 26, 2013), https://perma.cc/R5T4-BXBK.
A more recent example involving a possibly illegal hack is the case of the so-called Panama
Papers, more than 2.6 terabytes of internal documents from the now-shuttered Panamanian law
firm Mossack Fonseca that were anonymously submitted to the German newspaper Süddeutsche
Zeitung. See Frederick Obermaier et al., About the Panama Papers, Süddeutsche Zeitung,
https://perma.cc/P86A-7W5Y. The Panama Papers, which included “confidential emails, copies
of passports, ledgers of bank transactions and even the various code names used to refer to clients,”
offered a “how-to guide of sorts on skirting or evading United States tax and financial disclosure
laws.” Eric Lipton & Julie Creswell, Panama Papers Show How Rich United States Clients Hid
Millions Abroad, N.Y. Times (June 5, 2016), https://perma.cc/9H6Z-XTBT. The International
Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a U.S.-based non-profit, now maintains a Panama Papers
database, which continues to generate stories as well as criminal investigations and indictments in

11

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 17 of 19

Germany and the United States. See The Panama Papers: Exposing the Rogue Offshore Finance
Industry, Int’l Consortium of Investigative Journalists, https://perma.cc/AX4W-ESPY; Hamish
Boland-Rudder & Will Fitzgibbon, Panama Papers: German Police Raid Deutsche Bank
Headquarters Over Alleged Money Laundering, Int’l Consortium of Investigative Journalists
(Nov. 29, 2018), https://perma.cc/C6AK-2R7F; Indictment, United States v. Owens, No. 18-cr693 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 27, 2018), https://perma.cc/88YE-FFZ4.
CONCLUSION
The legal question addressed here is one with significant implications for the free press:
does an act of publication that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment lose that
protection simply because a source acquired the published information unlawfully? The Supreme
Court has repeatedly held that it does not, in recognition of the First Amendment’s role in ensuring
the public has access to the information it needs to hold those who seek and wield power to
account. The press routinely relies on this First Amendment protection in performing its
democratic function to inform the public on matters of public concern.

March 13, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce D. Brown
Katie Townsend
Gabriel Rottman
Caitlin Vogus
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press
1156 15th Street, NW, Suite 1020
Washington, D.C. 20005
[phone]
[e-mail]

/s/ Carrie DeCell
Carrie DeCell (CD-0731)
Adi Kamdar
Alex Abdo (AA-0527)
Jameel Jaffer (JJ-4653)
Knight First Amendment Institute
at Columbia University
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 302
New York, NY 10115
[phone]
[e-mail]

12

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 18 of 19

Ben Wizner
Esha Bhandari
Brett Max Kaufman
Dror Ladin
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
[phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Amici Curiae

13

Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 238-1 Filed 03/13/19 Page 19 of 19

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that according to the word count feature of the word processing program
used to prepare this brief, the brief contains 3,495 words (exclusive of the cover page, certificate
of compliance, table of contents, and table of authorities), and complies with Local Civil Rule 11.1
of the Southern District of New York, as well as with Individual Practice Rule 2.D of Judge John
G. Koeltl (to whom this case has been assigned).

/s/ Carrie DeCell
Carrie DeCell

14