Press-related prosecutions under the Espionage Act
Legal filings in Espionage Act prosecutions of individuals accused of disclosing information to the press and public
This Reading Room contains key court filings related to all Espionage Act prosecutions of those accused of disclosing information to the press or to the general public. Passed more than a century ago, the Espionage Act has long been used by the government to prosecute whistleblowers for disclosing information to the press. Recently, there has been an uptick in these prosecutions under the Obama and Trump administrations, which have charged more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined. For an interactive graph and chart of all press-related prosecutions under the Espionage Act, click here.
Showing 121–130 of 176
-
District Ct. Op., United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. June 2, 2011)
District court's opinion concluding that during CIPA hearings, the Government had the authority to redact and provide substitutions for unclassified information that it nevertheless deemed protected by asserting a privilege under the 1959 National Security Agency Act. The court further found that the privilege was not prejudicial to the Defendant.
-
Gov't Mot. in Lim. re: James Risen testimony, United States v. Sterling, No. 1:10-cr-00485 (E.D. Va. May 23, 2011)
Government's motion in limine to admit the testimony of reporter James Risen.
-
District Ct. Op., United States v. Drake, 818 F. Supp. 2d 909 (D. Md. 2011)
District court's denial of Drake's motion to find CIPA unconstitutional and dismiss the Espionage Act charges of his indictment concerning unauthorized possession of documents. The district court found that Section 793(e) is neither unconstitutionally vague nor overbroad.
-
District Ct. Op., United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Apr. 4, 2011)
District court's denial of Drake's motion to dismiss Count Two of the indictment, unauthorized possession of a classified document, on grounds that the document was not actually classified.
-
Amicus Br. (Government Accountability Project), United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2011)
Amicus brief of Government Accountability Project opposing Government's motion in limine to preclude evidence of necessity, justification, or alleged whistleblowing. GAP argues that the First Amendment and statutory whistleblower protections apply to Drake's defense, and therefore evidence of his whistleblowing efforts must be admissible for defending against Section 793(e)'s required mental state.
-
Drake Reply re: Mot. to Dismiss re: Count Ones-Five of the Indictment, United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2011)
Drake's reply brief re: motion to dismiss Counts One through Five of the indictment.
-
Gov't Reply re: Mot. in Lim. re: Newspaper Articles, United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2011)
Government's reply brief re: motion in limine to preclude any reference to and admission of published newspaper articles.
-
Gov't Reply re: Mot. in Lim. re: Disclosure of Classified Information, United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2011)
Government's reply brief re: motion in limine to exclude evidence or defense attacking the legality of the regulatory scheme relating to the disclosure of classified information.
-
Drake Reply re: Mot. to Dismiss re: Count Two, United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2011)
Drake's reply brief re: motion to dismiss Count Two of the indictment.
-
Sterling Reply re: Mot. to Dismiss re: Counts One and Two, United States v. Sterling, No. 1:10-cr-00485 (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2011)
Sterling's reply brief re: motion to dismiss Counts One and Two of the indictment.