Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.
Significance, The Sacred Trust Between Reporter And Source, The Press Is Subject To The Same Laws As All Citizens
Cowles Media Co., DBA Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., et al.
That the First Amendment does not prevent a plaintiff from recovering damages under a state law of general applicability when a newspaper breaches a promise of confidentiality to the plaintiff.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Elliot C. Rothenberg
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
John D. French
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter
Date of Decision
24 June 1991
Reversed and remanded the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision that enforcement of a promise of confidentiality would violate the First Amendment rights of the publishers of the Pioneer Press and Star Tribune
- New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).
- Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing, 443 U.S. 97 (1979).
- Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
- County of Allegheny v. ACLU - Significance, The Controversy Continues
- Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center - Significance, Obscenity Or Art?, The Nea And Sexually Explicit Art, Further Readings
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. - Further Readings
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. - Significance
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. - The Sacred Trust Between Reporter And Source
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. - The Press Is Subject To The Same Laws As All Citizens
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. - The Press' Freedom Is The Public's Right
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias