A US appeals court on Tuesday refused to block the jailing of two journalists for refusing to testify before a grand jury probing the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper have each been convicted of contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the leak.
The journalists now face up to 18 months in jail, unless they agree to testify or can convince the US Supreme Court to hear the case.
"We are disappointed with the court's decision and we will seek a stay in order to have sufficient time to seek a US Supreme Court review," Toby Usnik, a spokesman for Miller's employer, the New York Times, said in a statement.
The reporters were convicted after refusing US District Court Judge Thomas Hogan's order to testify, claiming a special privilege for journalists based on their role in providing information to the public.
But judges of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed, upholding the decision of a three-judge appeals panel from February.
The court said a majority of the seven judges hearing the case had rejected the journalists' petition for a rehearing. One, Judge David Tatel, issued an opinion explaining his vote.
"None of the petitioners' claims meets our high standard for reconsideration by the en banc court," Tatel wrote.
The case involving Miller and Cooper stems from a grand jury investigation into who leaked the name of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame to conservative columnist Bob Novak. Novak revealed her identity in a July 2003 column, citing two unnamed senior administration officials as his sources.
Under public and media pressure sparked by reports that administration officials had disclosed Plame's name to several journalists, President George W. Bush in December 2003 ordered an investigation into the leak and named Patrick Fitzgerald, US attorney in Chicago, as special counsel.
Fitzgerald promptly convened a grand jury and began calling journalists to testify, including those, such as Miller, who had not written about the affair.
The case is one of several in the US that have recently revived the issue of whether reporters should be forced to testify in court about information they learn while doing their jobs.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects journalists from government interference in their work. But the Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that protection does not apply to reporters whose testimony is essential in criminal cases, even if a source was promised anonymity.
RSS