Posted by Juan Non-Volokh:
<i>Bohener v. McDermott</i> Redux:

   In 1996, Representative Jim McDermott obtained a tape of an illegally
   intercepted cellphone call between Representative John Boehner,
   then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, and other members of the House Republican
   leadership. McDermott turned the tape over to the New York Times,
   which published a story on the tape's contents, and Rep. Boehner sued.
   The district court initially dismissed the case on First Amendment
   grounds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed, and
   then the Supreme Courtvacated the D.C Circuit's opinion and remanded
   the case in light of another case holding the relevant statute
   unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Now, back at the district
   court, Rep. Boehner [1]appears to have won the case (for the time
   being). In [2]this opinion released yesterday, Judge Hogan
   distinguishes the relevant Supreme Court holding and holds for Rep.
   Boehner. According to Judge Hogan, "because Defendant McDermott
   participated in an illegal transaction when he accepted the tape from
   the Martins, he is without First Amendment protection and Plaintiff
   Boehner is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law." A
   [3]subsequent hearing will determine the extent of the damages. AS one
   might expect, [4]the New York Times is not happy. "Judge Hogan's
   decision may be extremely harmful," commendted one of the paper's
   attorneys, "since it goes well beyond past cases to hold that a
   totally passive recipient of information, who did not solicit or pay
   for it, can be held liable. Under this new rule, much of the
   information reporters acquire every day, from the Pentagon Papers on
   down, would become legally suspect." The case will certainly be
   appealed, and the key issue will be whether the distinction drawn by
   Judge Hogan holds.

References

   1. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/national/24tape.html
   2. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/98-0594-082004-2.pdf
   3. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/98-0594-082004-1.pdf
   4. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/national/24tape.html

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to