Thread by @GeorgeCroner

I have documented my concerns regarding the issue of essentially immunizing the press through a de facto federal shield law where leaks involve the disclosure of classified national security information. E.g. law.upenn.edu/live/news/1105….
So, like @charlie_savage, I'm curious 1

https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1403728054111948804

about the details of the new Biden-Garland DOJ policy. For example, let's assume the leak divulges classified information concerning the communications intelligence activities of the U.S. According to 18 USC §798, the transmission of such classified information is a crime AND 2

the act of publishing such information is also a separate and distinct crime. So, does the new DOJ policy mean that this administration is foregoing the option of subpoenaing a reporter to ascertain the source of a leak where both the leaking and the publication of the 3

classified information is a crime under § 798? Such an interpretation would significantly undermine enforcement of a statute passed by Congress (incidentally, with the approval of the American Society of Newspaper Editors) and neutralize tools available to prosecutors 4

where the leak involves information identified by Congress as both particularly vital to the national security but also uniquely vulnerable.

On a more macro level, the issue of a enacting a federal shield law has been kicking around Congress for decades without ever generating 5

the support sufficient to become law. My own view is that an interpretation of the Biden-Garland DOJ policy that categorically immunizes reporters from any compelled disclosure in connection with any leak investigation is tantamount to creating the shield law that has never 6

garnered sufficient legislative support to become law. This strikes me as an undertaking as unwise as the recently disclosed ham-handed efforts of the Trump DOJ. END