Freedom of Press Issues to be Argued by NAACP Legal Defense Fund Attorney - United States v. Earl Caldwell
Press Release
February 17, 1972

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Volume 6. Freedom of Press Issues to be Argued by NAACP Legal Defense Fund Attorney - United States v. Earl Caldwell, 1972. 5c724fcb-ba92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/4d7ddd72-1168-4dea-a53d-6aa3875d005d/freedom-of-press-issues-to-be-argued-by-naacp-legal-defense-fund-attorney-united-states-v-earl-caldwell. Accessed July 13, 2025.
Copied!
ressRelease ft ae ae a FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 17, 1972 FREEDOM OF PRESS ISSUES TO BE ARGUED BY NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND ATTORNEY UNITED STATES v. EARL CALDWELL On Tuesday, February 22, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund h affiliate attorney, Stanford law professor,Anthony Amsterdam, will argue freedom of the press issues in the U.S. Supreme Court, in the United States v. Earl Caldwell Case. The argument will challenge the absolute right of federal grand juries to subpoena newsmen to testify during their investigations. LDF attorneys contend that such unbridled grand jury subpoena ‘e power can and does directly impinge upon freedom of the press. They are asking the high court to uphold the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which ruled that freedom of the press is in jeopardy if reporters have no recourse but to testify in secret grand jury hearings about their sources of news. a t a i g e er A favorable ruling for Earl Caldwell, a black New York Times F reporter, hinges upon whether the high court agrees that freedom of the press, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, prohibits the government from interfering with collection -- as well as dis- semination -- of news. Since the Supreme Court has never before addressed itself to this question, the decision will likely set an important precedent. Earl Caldwell's involvement with the government began when two consecutive federal grand juries subpoenaed him (on February 2 (More) = AACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586: iam T. Coleman, Jr. - President _ Jack Greenberg - Director-C FREEDOM OF PRESS ISSUES PAGE TWO and May 22, 1970) to testify about the activities of the Black Panther Party. Their interest in Caldwell centered on knowledge he acquired as a reporter specializing in coverage of dissident and militant groups, including the Panthers. Believing that an appearance before the grand jury would ruin his credibility and relationship with members of the Panther Party, and ultimately destroy his ability to gather news, Caldwell brought these claims to district court and asserted his refusal to obey the subpoenas. The decision of that court required Caldwell to appear before the jury, but protected him from divulging information he received in confidence, i.e., information not for publication, as well as information concerning his sources of news. Caldwell, unhappy with this decision, appealed, and the Ninth Circuit upheld the protective order of the lower court. However, it further concluded that the nominal benefits of any non-confidential disclosures Caldwell might make to the grand jury could not be reconciled against the probable harm to Caldwell personally or to the American public if such dissident and militant news sources became alienated from the press through fear of government investigation and reprisal. Thus, it freed Caldwell from any responsibility to testify before the grand jury. Now in the Supreme Court, the government claims that federal grand juries have always had an absolute right to subpoena any person in order to conduct their investigations; that reporters subpoenaed in the past have never claimed immunity from such investigations. It also alleges that the First Amendment simply restrains government from interfering with dissemination -- as opposed to collection -- of news (more) FREEDOM OF PRESS ISSUES PAGE THREE and has no bearing on this case. To counter these claims the LDF brief notes that there have been numerous Supreme Court rulings which have tempered the power of government to insure constitutional rights; that the primary reason immunity has not been sought before is because the trend to subpoena newsinen has only recently come into wide use; that "freedom of the press to gather the news is the factual precondition of freedom of the press to disseminate the news, and freedom of the public to receive it." LDF attorneys take the position that grand juries unbridled power to subpoena the press does, in fact, jeopardize freedom of the press when it threatens to extinguish sensitive and important sources of news; that only when government can demonstrate an overriding national interest should its concerns outweigh the rights of citizens to a free and informed press. To stress the importance of confidential relationships between newsmen and their sources, some 19 well-known newsmen have filed affidavits, now part of the record in this case. Correspondents like Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid of CBS, Gil Noble and Timothy Knight of ABC, staff reporters for The New York Times and Newsweek have attested to their fears that without some reasonable assurances of immunity, many of the most important sources of news -- from militant political groups like the Panthers to whistle-blowers in government -- will soon dry up. The LDF brief, as well as amicus briefs filed by several news organizations, point out specific examples where the ability of the press to gather news has already been seriously impaired by the use or fear of government's power of subpoena upon the press. (more) FREEDOM OF PRESS ISSUES PAGE FOUR NOTE: Please bear in mind that the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. is a completely separate and distinct organization, even though we were established by the NAACP and retain those initials in our name. Our correct designation is NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., frequently shortened to LDF. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Abeke Foster (212) 586-8397 or Attorney Steve Ralston