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 151–160 of 176
-
Judgment re: Shamai Leibowitz, No. 8:09-cr-00632 (D. Md. May 24, 2010 filed May 25, 2010)
Judgment accepting Leibowitz's guilty plea and sentencing him to twenty months in prison.
-
Tr. re: Leibowitz Sentencing Hearing, United States v. Leibowitz, No. 8:09-cr-00632 (D. Md. May 24, 2010 filed June 17, 2010)
Transcript of Leibowitz's sentencing hearing.
-
Indictment re: Thomas Drake, United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Apr. 14, 2010)
Grand jury indictment charging Drake under Section 793(e) of the Espionage Act.
-
Tr. re: Leibowitz Arraignment and Rule 11 Hearing, United States v. Leibowitz, No. 8:09-cr-00632 (D. Md. Dec. 17, 2009 filed Dec. 29, 2009)
Transcript of Leibowitz's arraignment and Rule 11 hearing.
-
Waiver of Indictment re: Shamai Leibowitz, United States v. Leibowitz, No. 8:09-cr-00632 (D. Md. Dec. 17, 2009)
Leibowitz's waiver of grand jury indictment.
-
Information re: Shamai Leibowitz, United States v. Leibowitz, No. 8:09-cr-00632 (D. Md. Dec. 4, 2009)
Criminal information charging Leibowitz under Section 798(a)(3) of the Espionage Act.
-
Plea Agreement re: Shamai Leibowitz, United States v. Leibowitz, No. 8:09-cr-00632 (D. Md. Dec. 02, 2009 filed Dec. 17, 2009)
Leibowitz's plea agreement.
-
District Ct. Op., United States v. Rosen et al., No. 1:05-cr-225 (E.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2007)
District court's opinion in response to Defendants' request for requested witness subpoenas for 20 current and former government officials, outlining the legal principles controlling whether the subpoenas should issue. Defendants argued the subpoenas were necessary because they indicated the prevalence of government officials engaging in "back channel" communications to advance foreign policy goals, which went to the lack of required mental state under the Espionage Act, as construed by the district court. The district court sustained some of the Government's objections and overruled others, and issued a separate sealed and classified order ruling reflecting the specific reasoning and ruling for each requested witness subpoena, but published the names of the 15 witnesses for which subpoenas would issue.
-
District Ct. Op., United States v. Rosen et al., No. 1:05-cr-225 (E.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2007)
District court's opinion outlining the legal principles governing the disposition of the Government's CIPA motion, including restating that in cases of oral disclosure of information, Sections 793(d) and (e) of the Espionage Act require that the defendants be aware that the information was closely held by the government and damaging to national security if revealed; the recipient was not entitled to receive the information; and that the information could be used to the injury of the United States or advantage of a foreign nation. The district court issued a separate classified and sealed order setting forth the district court's application of those principles and holdings with respect to the Government's CIPA motion.
-
District Ct. Op., United States v. Rosen et al., No. 1:05-cr-225 (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2007)
District court's denial of the Government's motion pursuant to Section 6 of the CIPA to withhold substantial quantities of classified information from the public at trial. The district court emphasized the novelty of the Government's proposal—which suggested the public should only have access to the substitutions that have passed through the CIPA process—noting the process has never been "judicially approved or used" in a published opinion. The court concluded that even if the procedure were authorized by CIPA—which it is not—it would not pass First nor Sixth Amendment muster under the Press-Enterprise test because it "effectively closes portions of the trial."