"Defanging the Free Press"

Mississippi Today, a nonprofit newsroom, is embroiled in a legal battle with former Governor Phil Bryant, who is demanding the newsroom hand over confidential notes and sources from their Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation into a welfare scandal. This case has sparked significant concern over press freedoms in Mississippi and potentially beyond.

Bryant, a central figure in the investigation, filed a defamation lawsuit in July 2023. Although he does not dispute the accuracy of the reporting, he seeks access to all materials related to the investigation, which uncovered the misuse of at least $77 million intended for the state's poorest residents.

The lawsuit has placed significant strain on Mississippi Today's finances and staff, with repeated amendments to the complaint adding more pressure. Editor-in-chief Adam Ganucheau and investigative reporter Anna Wolfe have also been named as defendants. These legal tactics appear aimed at stifling ongoing reporting on the welfare fund misuse and its broader implications.

A recent court order from a judge appointed by Governor Tate Reeves demands Mississippi Today turn over confidential source documents. The newsroom has appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing the order violates constitutional protections and requesting recognition of a reporter’s privilege to safeguard journalistic sources.

This appeal carries risks, as the Mississippi Supreme Court includes four justices appointed by Bryant and two others endorsed by him. The court's decision could either reinforce or undermine press freedoms in a state lacking formal shield laws for journalists.

While awaiting the Supreme Court's decision, Bryant has pushed for the newsroom to be held in contempt for not producing extensive documents. If held in contempt, Mississippi Today could face severe penalties, including fines, jail time for staff, or a default judgment, threatening the newsroom's sustainability.

This case is not only pivotal for Mississippi Today but could have nationwide implications. If the Mississippi Supreme Court rules against the newsroom, the case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially challenging key precedents like the 1964 New York Times Company v. Sullivan decision, which protects journalists from defamation suits by requiring public figures to prove actual malice.

The legal battle against Mississippi Today could set a dangerous precedent, weakening press freedoms and allowing government corruption to go unchecked. The outcome will have far-reaching effects on investigative journalism and transparency in government, underscoring the importance of protecting constitutional rights across the country.

1. In your opinion, should news organizations like Mississippi Today have to give up secret sources and private notes when they face legal problems, or should they be allowed to keep them safe under the First Amendment? Why do you think that?

2. What do you think about the legal actions taken by former Governor Phil Bryant against Mississippi Today? How might these actions affect the ability of journalists to make sure that public officials do their jobs properly in other parts of the country?

3. How do you feel about the possible results if Mississippi Today's case goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and challenges the rules that protect journalists from being sued for making false claims?

4. Do you think that states without special laws that protect journalists should make new rules to protect the freedom of the press, or are the laws that already exist good enough? Why do you say that?

5. In your opinion, why is it important for journalists to look into things deeply and for the government to be open about what it does? How should the law help to make sure these things happen?