The Alabama Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could reshape how the state's nearly century-old reporter shield law applies to modern journalism and digital media. The case arose from a defamation lawsuit filed by former Alabama basketball player Kai Spears against The New York Times after the newspaper wrongfully identified him as being present at the scene of a 2023 murder in Tuscaloosa.
Spears filed the federal defamation lawsuit claiming the Times' reporting was false, inadequately verified and presented as fact despite contrary information. The former student-athlete was mistakenly identified as a passenger in a car connected to the shooting, prompting him to seek information about the confidential sources underlying the erroneous article.
The Times refused to provide that information, invoking Alabama's reporter shield statute to protect its sources. This refusal created a legal standoff that forced a federal judge to seek guidance from the state's highest court on two critical questions about the 1936 law's scope and application.
The federal court stayed the discovery dispute and certified questions to the Alabama Supreme Court asking it to definitively interpret whether the shield statute applies to information published online by a newspaper and whether it protects only a source's name or also broader source-identifying information.
Representing The New York Times, attorney Chad Bowman argued that Alabama's shield law, adopted in 1936 and among the oldest in the nation, should be interpreted broadly to protect not just source names but any information that could reveal their identity. "Source clearly means the identity of the person providing the information and facially identifying information, like the source's phone number and address," Bowman told the court. "But the plain language means it could be a document as well."
Bowman urged the justices to interpret privileged information to include any details that could identify a source, including "any disclosure of information, such as place of employment, that would tend to identify him otherwise through a series of indirect questions." This expansive reading would provide stronger protections for journalists and their sources in an era where digital footprints and data analysis can make identification easier.
The Supreme Court panel appeared to focus more intensely on the second certified question regarding the scope of source protection rather than the first question about online versus print publication. The justices seemed to suggest there is no meaningful distinction in the 90-year-old law between printed and online news reporting, indicating that digital journalism would likely receive the same protections as traditional print media.
The case highlights the challenges faced by courts trying to apply decades-old laws to modern journalism practices. Alabama's reporter shield statute was written in 1936, long before the internet, social media, and the digital tools that now define much of contemporary news gathering and reporting. The statute's language reflects an era when journalism was primarily conducted through newspapers, radio, and face-to-face interviews.
The outcome could have significant implications for press freedom in Alabama and potentially influence how other states with similarly aged shield laws interpret source protection. If the court adopts a broad interpretation of the statute, it could strengthen protections for journalists seeking to protect confidential sources. Conversely, a narrow reading might limit those protections and make it easier for litigants to compel disclosure of source-identifying information.
The case also underscores the ongoing tension between a plaintiff's right to gather evidence in defamation cases and the press's need to protect confidential sources. Defamation plaintiffs often argue they need access to source information to prove their cases, while news organizations contend that forcing disclosure would harm their ability to gather news and protect sources who provide information in confidence.
For Spears, the case represents an attempt to seek accountability for what he alleges was shoddy journalism that damaged his reputation by connecting him to a serious crime. For The New York Times and the broader journalism community, the case is about preserving the ability to protect sources who provide information that serves the public interest.
The Alabama Supreme Court's eventual ruling will provide much-needed clarity on how the state's reporter shield law applies in the digital age. The decision could influence similar cases in other jurisdictions with older shield laws that courts must adapt to modern journalism practices. Legal observers will be watching closely to see whether the court embraces a broad, protective interpretation of the statute or takes a more restrictive approach that could limit press freedoms in the state.