In Re Roche

Background

Roche is a television reporter who broadcast a story accusing a state judge of misconduct. The state Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated and listed 65 proposed witnesses; the judge was allowed to depose 11 of them, including Roche. Roche told the judge about interviews with sources who had appeared publicly, but he refused to identify confidential sources and invoked a news reporter’s privilege. The Commission and a single justice ordered Roche to reveal those confidential identities; he again refused and was held in civil contempt, a judgment later affirmed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Reasoning

Justice Brennan considered whether the First Amendment protects a reporter from being forced to name confidential sources and whether to pause enforcement while Roche seeks Supreme Court review. He noted that earlier cases did not completely rule out some protection for reporters, and that here the judge could obtain information by deposing the listed witnesses. Brennan found a reasonable chance that the Court would take the case and possibly reverse, and concluded that the balance of harms — including the reporter’s risk of jail or surrendering confidences — favored continuing the pause pending review.

Real world impact

The stay lets Roche avoid immediate jail and preserves his claim of a reporter privilege while permitting the judge to pursue witness testimony by depositions. The order is temporary: it pauses enforcement only while the reporter asks the Supreme Court to review and until that review is resolved, so the outcome could change. The decision directly affects journalists facing contempt for protecting sources and judges and disciplinary bodies seeking testimony in official inquiries.