Government, news media settle Wen Ho Lee lawsuit

Let this be a lesson to the children: Crime DOES pay.

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Cases of Journalists re Lee
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Cases of Journos in Wen Ho Lee Case
Published: June 06, 2006 7:30 AM ET
E & P - WASHINGTON

The Supreme Court refused on Monday to consider the cases of journalists who protected confidential sources for stories about former nuclear weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee, a final note in a legal fight that pitted press freedoms against privacy rights.

The court's action, taken without comment, was announced three days after the decision of news organizations to pay Lee $750,000 as part of the $1.6 million settlement of his privacy lawsuit against the government.

The settlement erased civil contempt of court citations against reporters for refusing to disclose who leaked them information about an espionage investigation of Lee, who was fired from his job at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

Lee sued the government for violating his rights under the Privacy Act, and said he needed the reporters' testimony to tell him who in the government attempted to smear him as a spy for China. He was never charged with espionage.

Justices could have dismissed the appeal as moot, or no longer an issue, based on the out-of-court settlement. Instead, they rejected the appeal, which had been filed on behalf of the reporters during the legal wrangling with Lee.

Betsy Miller, one of Lee's lawyers, called the court decision a surprise that "is an important, final vindication for Dr. Lee, as it resolves without any doubt that the court did not feel the reporters' appeals merited further review."

The prospect of Supreme Court inaction factored into the agreement by five news organizations, including The Associated Press, to make the payment to Lee.

"They played out the legal possibilities and they looked pretty bleak. Maybe discretion was the better part of valor," said University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias.

Jane Kirtley, professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said she disagreed with the news companies' decision to pay Lee, particularly when the government is pressing reporters to reveal sources in several cases involving disclosure of classified information.

"It does not seem to me this is a really good time for news organizations to be suggesting that they are tacitly at fault when they receive leaked classified information, and the settlement certainly conveys that message," Kirtley said

Like other media advocates, Kirtley said the best way to protect journalists would be the passage of a federal media shield law. Legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate, but prospects for passage are uncertain.

The four reporters involved in the appeal are H. Josef Hebert of The Associated Press, James Risen of The New York Times, Bob Drogin of the Los Angeles Times and Pierre Thomas, formerly of CNN and now working for ABC News.

Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus also had been held in contempt, but his case was handled separately. The Post, though, was part of Friday's settlement.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate.

The cases are Drogin v. Lee, 05-969, and Thomas v. Lee, 05-1114.