In an athlete’s defamation suit against a newspaper, the court found that reporters cannot withhold “all” disclosures that might point to a confidential source, only information that “inevitably” will reveal them.
(CN) – The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday limited the scope of the state’s law to protect journalists, handing a partial victory to former University of Alabama basketball player Kai Spears in his ongoing defamation lawsuit against The New York Times.
The decision clarifies what journalists can withhold in the state during disclosure when it comes to confidential sources.
The case stems from a 2023 article that identified Spears as a passenger in a car connected to a fatal shooting in Tuscaloosa. Spears, who was not involved, sued the paper, alleging that the story was repeatedly stated as fact even though it was based largely on one anonymous source and despite information to the contrary from another.
In a federal lawsuit, Spears sought discovery to learn more about the newspaper’s sources and the vetting process to prove actual negligence or malice for possible punitive damages. The Times invoked Alabama’s 1936 reporter’s shield statute, which protects “the sources of any information … published in the newspaper.” U.S. District Judge Annemarie Carney Axon dismissed the case, sending the two certified questions to the state Supreme Court for resolution.
after oral arguments in FebruaryJustice Chris McCool wrote the majority decision for the all-Republican court, finding Friday that the shield protects only the identity of a source and any information that would “inevitably” reveal that identity. Such information may include a residential address, telephone number, email or social media account.
But more importantly, the court found that the shield does not extend to broader materials that could “reasonably lead” to identifying the source.
“By its plain language, (the statute) protects only ‘sources of … information,’ which, in its strictest and narrowest sense, does not protect ‘any and all information’ that, in the hands of a shrewd recipient, ‘could reasonably lead’ to the disclosure of the identity of a confidential source,” McCool. wrote for the court.
The Supreme Court counseled a strict construction of the statute, noting that privileges limiting discovery are narrowly construed because they modify the common law.
“We hold that this language also necessarily protects any information that would unavoidably reveal the identity of a confidential source, because disclosure of such information would, for all intents and purposes, be tantamount to disclosing the source’s name,” McCool wrote, adding that “(i)nevitable” is not the same as “obvious, what litigation will resolve” and the courts.
Justices Greg Shaw and William B. Sellers concurred in part, emphasizing the plain language analysis. Judge Brady E. Mendheim dissented, arguing that the court should have rejected both questions because the first was moot and the second was conditional on the first.
The matter now returns to Axon, a Donald Trump appointee, where disclosure can continue with clearer boundaries.
Media advocates presented a friend of the court summary in this case, the caveat to a narrow reading can chill journalism.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the New York Times said, “we appreciate that the court recognized that Alabama’s journalistic shield law applies to the New York Times in this case, and the law protects against disclosure of information that would identify our sources.” Other parties could not be reached for comment by press time.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
