Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Contracts

Contractspromissory estoppelconfidentiality promiseFirst Amendmentjournalismpromissory estoppelconfidential sourcenewspaper

Facts

During the 1982 Minnesota gubernatorial race, Dan Cohen offered reporters from two newspapers documents concerning a candidate only on the condition that they promise confidentiality. The reporters promised anonymity, and Cohen then provided copies of public court records concerning Marlene Johnson. The newspapers later decided to publish stories that identified Cohen as the source and noted his connection to the Whitney campaign. The same day the stories appeared, Cohen was fired by his employer.

Issue

Does the First Amendment prohibit a plaintiff from recovering damages under state promissory estoppel law when a newspaper breaches a promise of confidentiality given in exchange for information? Also, does judicial enforcement of such a promissory estoppel claim constitute state action sufficient to trigger First Amendment scrutiny?

Rule

Application of state rules of law by state courts in a manner alleged to restrict First Amendment freedoms constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. But the First Amendment does not forbid enforcement against the press of a generally applicable law, such as promissory estoppel, merely because enforcement has incidental effects on the press's ability to gather and report the news.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, a freelance investigative blogger, Elena Ruiz, promised a city employee that she would not reveal his identity if he shared internal emails about a zoning dispute. After publishing the story, Elena identified him by name. The employee sued under Arizona promissory estoppel doctrine, and Elena argues the First Amendment is irrelevant because the dispute is between private parties.

How should a court rule on Elena's argument that no constitutional issue is implicated?

Explanation. The majority held that application of state law by state courts in a manner alleged to restrict First Amendment freedoms constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. Even though the dispute originates in a private promise, enforcement would occur through the official power of the courts. Therefore, the First Amendment question is implicated, though that does not mean the press wins on the merits. (Derived from Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1991).)