Judith Miller is a former reporter for The New York Times and author of four books on the Middle East, biological weapons and the Holocaust. For information on her prosecution for refusing to reveal sources to federal prosecutors, see the news section of this Web site or the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.



In this section:

• Judy Speaks in Brazil

• Iraqi Militants Becoming Citizens

• Intelligent Policing Comes to New Jersey

• Best of the Web -- I've Got a Secret

• The Other Terrorism

• WHAT I LEARNED AT 'ANTI-JIHAD U'

• FBI VS. THE NYPD: Behind the Latest Flap

• Anti-terrorism in paradise: Lacking funds and manpower, Bratton's war on terror is based on the principle of sharing.

• From the Shores of Tripoli

• Book Review: George Tenet's At the Center of the Storm






Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War
by Judith Miller, William Broad, Stephen Engelberg
Simon & Schuster, 2001




God Has Ninety-Nine Names: A Reporter's Journey Through a Militant Middle East
by Judith Miller
Simon & Schuster, 1996




Created and maintained pro-bono by Joshua Tanzer, web developer and journalist in New York City.

• Resume
• Web site
• Contact

CFIF Urges Supreme Court to Take Reporters' Contempt Cases

Center for Individual Freedom

Alexandria, VA -- The Center for Individual Freedom today filed an amicus curiae brief asking the Supreme Court to grant review of a lower court's decision to hold New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time Magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper in contempt for refusing to reveal their confidential sources to a federal grand jury.

"It is long past time for this Court ... to reconsider and clarify whether and when the First Amendment protects newsgatherers from compelled disclosure of their confidential news sources," the brief says.

"The right of a free press is at the core of our democracy. Prosecutors just can't be allowed to haul reporters willy-nilly before a grand jury to extract confidential information," said Reid Cox, the Center's General Counsel. "Though we often say the public has a right to know, the press is the conduit for the public's knowledge. If reporters have to fear jail every time they get a confidential tip, we will all know less."

The Center's argument that the Court should take the cases rests on two major points. First, lower courts are hopelessly divided on the question of a privilege for reporters protecting their confidential sources. Second, the Center's brief applies the Court's logic from a death penalty decision announced earlier this term. Specifically, the Court said that a "consensus" of states had emerged on the issue in question. The Center's brief points out that 49 states and the District of Columbia now recognize and protect some form of reporter's privilege. Under the Court's own logic, the brief argues, the Court should recognize that the First Amendment protects confidential news sources.

The Center also objects to the lower court's reliance on secret evidence to support its decision. "Perhaps the most surprising and objectionable part of the decision below was the court's willingness to uphold the contempt citations against [the reporters] based upon evidence neither they nor their counsel were allowed to examine or afforded the opportunity to rebut," the brief says.

The Center for Individual Freedom is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to defending individual freedoms and rights. The Center has long been a strong defender of the First Amendment. Previously, it filed a similar brief in the case of Vanessa Leggett, an investigative journalist who was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to reveal her confidential sources.

Official site

May 18, 2005


A Case for the Supreme Court

Time, May 15, 2005

A Case for the Supreme Court
By NORM PEARLSTINE

As a rule, we at TIME Inc., publisher of this and many other magazines, believe that we should report the news instead of making it. We also believe in the rule of law, and we do not believe journalists, ours or anyone else's, should be held above it.

Sometimes, however, staying out of the news becomes impossible. And sometimes seeking a clarification of our nation's law from its highest court becomes an imperative. We find ourselves in just such a position with TIME Magazine and its White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, both of whom have come under extraordinary government pressure to cooperate in an investigation in ways that we believe are unwarranted and potentially damaging to the free flow of information that leads to accountability in our democracy. As this controversy unfolds, we want you to understand the story behind that story.

You may be aware that Cooper, along with Judith Miller of the New York Times, faces the very real possibility of going to jail for refusing to disclose confidential sources to a federal grand jury investigating who revealed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson. Ironically, neither Cooper nor Miller actually outed Plame. . . .

We don't risk jail or fines lightly. It is our editorial policy to identify sources by name whenever possible. But sometimes we can obtain information only by promising confidentiality to a source, because many persons with important information won't speak to the press unless they are assured anonymity. Information given in confidence is especially valuable when it contradicts or undermines public positions asserted by governments or powerful individuals or corporations. Without confidential sourcing, the public would never have learned the details of many situations vital to its interests, from Watergate to Enron to Abu Ghraib. . . .

We believe we must protect our sources when we grant them confidentiality, an obligation we take seriously. We also believe we must resist government coercion. Put simply, the issues at stake are crucial to our ability to report the news and inform the public. We hope the Supreme Court will hear our case and rule in our favor. As it said many years ago, freedom of the press was established "not for the benefit of the press so much as for the benefit of all of us."

Full article

May 18, 2005


Pravda: Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper should be jailed for contempt

NewsFromRussia.com, April 20, 2005

Two reporters facing up to 18 months in jail for refusing to testify about their sources lost another round in the courts yesterday. The reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, now have only one appeal left, to the United States Supreme Court.

. . .

The decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington accelerates the pace of the conflict between a special prosecutor and the two reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of the New York Times. It also serves as a firm rebuke to major news organizations and First Amendment groups who had weighed in on the case, legal experts said.

Full article

May 18, 2005


Famed attorney calls for shield laws

The New Mexican, May 15, 2005

Barbara Ferry | The New MexicanMay 15, 2005

Reporters, who rely on confidential sources to do their job, need a federal "shield law' to protect them from being forced to testify in court and reveal their sources, the nation's top First Amendment lawyer told an assembly of journalists, media lawyers and others Saturday.

Floyd Abrams, who has been at the center of media battles for more than 30 years, spoke at the annual meeting of the Freedom of Information Coalition at the Hotel St. Francis.

. . .

Abrams is currently representing New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper, both of whom have been subpoenaed in a federal investigation into a leak of the identity of a covert CIA officer.

Miller and Cooper have been held in contempt of court for their refusal to reveal their sources, Abrams said, and face up to 18 months in jail. Abrams has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

While nearly every state provides journalists with some level of protection from being forced to testify in court, Abrams said, there is no similar federal law.

The United States enjoys a freer press than many countries, he said, but the lack of protection for reporters in gathering information from confidential sources is the exception, despite an American tradition of not revealing sources that goes back to such notable figures as Ben Franklin.

If the Supreme Court does not side with the press in the Miller-Cooper case or if the Court refuses to hear the case, the press should seek a law in Congress to protect journalists, he said.

Otherwise, he said, "we will be sending journalists out into situations where they are continually in great peril with no protection if they do what they're told to do."

Full article

May 18, 2005


Supreme Court urged to protect reporters from jail time

Associated Press, May 10, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has been asked to throw out contempt orders against two journalists who refused to reveal sources in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

Lawyers for Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller want the justices to clarify protections reporters have in keeping sources confidential. Cooper's appeal was filed Tuesday; Miller's was made Monday.

The Supreme Court will decide ... whether to consider the cases [next fall].

Cooper and Miller face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime.

Full article

May 18, 2005