## Facts

- During the 1982 Minnesota gubernatorial campaign, Dan Cohen, a political operative, provided reporters at two newspapers with court records concerning prior criminal charges of a candidate.
- Cohen provided the information only after receiving a promise from the reporters that his identity would remain confidential.
- Newspaper editors overruled the reporters and published stories identifying Cohen and his firm as the source.
- After publication, Cohen was fired from his job and claimed financial harm.
- Cohen sued the newspaper publishers, asserting liability for breaking the confidentiality promise (among other theories).

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction where the state supreme court addressed a First Amendment issue in connection with promissory estoppel.
2. Whether the First Amendment bars recovery of damages under a state promissory estoppel doctrine for a newspaper’s breach of a promise of confidentiality.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction because the state court actually decided the federal First Amendment question.
- The Court reversed the judgment that the First Amendment barred liability and remanded.
- The Court held, 5–4, that applying promissory estoppel to enforce a confidentiality promise against the press is not categorically prohibited by the First Amendment.
- The Court treated judicial enforcement of promissory estoppel as state action triggering First Amendment scrutiny but found no constitutional immunity from this generally applicable doctrine.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial enforcement of private obligations through state courts constitutes state action sufficient to implicate the First Amendment.
- The press has no general constitutional exemption from neutral, generally applicable laws (including contract-like and tort-like rules) that incidentally affect newsgathering and editorial decisions.
- A generally applicable promissory estoppel doctrine may be applied to newspapers without violating the First Amendment when it does not target the press or regulate speech based on content.
- Promissory estoppel may bind a promisor where a promise is expected to induce reliance, does induce reliance, and enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice; damages may compensate reliance-based, identifiable economic loss.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not bar a source from seeking promissory estoppel damages when newspapers breach a confidentiality promise, because the doctrine is a neutral law of general applicability enforceable against the press through ordinary judicial processes.


Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991)