Over the holiday I posted on the New York Times seeking a block from the high court to a lower court’s ruling that it must disclose phone records to federal investigators looking to find out who tipped off a terror-backing Islamic charity about an FBI raid.  Today we find that Justice Ginsburg, who is in charge of the circuit this case originated in, rejected the Times’ appeal.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation of a terrorism-funding probe.

The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon. The stories revealed the government’s plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

Like the CIA leak investigation into who in the Bush administration revealed the identity of Valerie Plame, the current Justice Department probe is being conducted by Patrick Fitzgerald, who is prosecuting Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff in the Plame case.

In June 2005, the Supreme Court refused to take up the Times’ request to hear an appeal in the Plame investigation. Fitzgerald was seeking to compel Miller, who retired from the Times a year ago, to reveal her sources in that case.

That leak probe led to Miller’s jailing for 85 days before she eventually agreed to testify in Fitzgerald’s investigation. Her testimony was crucial in the indictment of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis Libby.

The current dispute stems from Shenon and Miller calling two charities for comment after learning of the planned freeze on their assets from confidential sources. . . .

The government says the fact that the reporters relayed disclosures from a government source to “targets of an imminent law enforcement action substantially weakens any claim of freedom of the press.”

Indeed it does.

I get somewhat frustrated with people claiming that this is a 1st amendment issue.  It is, I guess, in that the Times is trying to hide behind constitutional protections to keep from being held accountable for the actions of its reporters, but really this is just your run-of-the-mill criminal case.  A crime was committed (an illegal leak of classified information from an on-going terror investigation) and the Times has information, or at least potentially has, information about who leaked the information.  Given that the Times is refusing to cooperate with the investigation into this leak, a properly authorized subpoena is a logical and perfectly legal step.

This was the correct ruling.  The Times would contend that being forced to divulge information on anonymous sources would have a “chilling effect” on the free press, but I’m not sure what part of the “freedom of the press” clause of the 1st amendment gives them the idea that they can’t be held accountable through appropriate application of due process for the things their reporters write.

“Freedom of the press” means that media is free to write what they want, but it doesn’t mean that the media is free from the consequences of what they write.  A consequence of printing information from a source that is illegally leaking the information is that federal investigators may want to know who that person is and, if you don’t cooperate with them, may want to look at your phone records to learn who it is.

That the Times would contend that they are above being held accountable by law enforcement - as anyone of us would be held accountable if we had information about a criminal - is the very height of media arrogance, and it is hypocritical too given the endless reporting and criticism aimed at the Bush administration over the Plame “leak” non-story.