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 121–130 of 173
-
District Ct. Op., United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Apr. 4, 2011)
District court's denial of Drake's motion to dismiss Count Two of the indictment, unauthorized possession of a classified document, on grounds that the document was not actually classified.
-
Amicus Br. (Government Accountability Project), United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2011)
Amicus brief of Government Accountability Project opposing Government's motion in limine to preclude evidence of necessity, justification, or alleged whistleblowing. GAP argues that the First Amendment and statutory whistleblower protections apply to Drake's defense, and therefore evidence of his whistleblowing efforts must be admissible for defending against Section 793(e)'s required mental state.
-
Drake Reply re: Mot. to Dismiss re: Count Ones-Five of the Indictment, United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2011)
Drake's reply brief re: motion to dismiss Counts One through Five of the indictment.
-
Gov't Reply re: Mot. in Lim. re: Disclosure of Classified Information, United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2011)
Government's reply brief re: motion in limine to exclude evidence or defense attacking the legality of the regulatory scheme relating to the disclosure of classified information.
-
Gov't Reply re: Mot. in Lim. re: Newspaper Articles, United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2011)
Government's reply brief re: motion in limine to preclude any reference to and admission of published newspaper articles.
-
Drake Reply re: Mot. to Dismiss re: Count Two, United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2011)
Drake's reply brief re: motion to dismiss Count Two of the indictment.
-
Sterling Reply re: Mot. to Dismiss re: Counts One and Two, United States v. Sterling, No. 1:10-cr-00485 (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2011)
Sterling's reply brief re: motion to dismiss Counts One and Two of the indictment.
-
Sterling Reply re: Mot. to Dismiss re: Counts One and Six, United States v. Sterling, No. 1:10-cr-00485 (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2011)
Sterling's reply brief re: motion to dismiss Counts One and Six of the indictment.
-
Gov't Resp. to Drake Mot. to Dismis re: Counts One-Five, United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2011)
Goverment's response brief to Drake's motion to dismiss Counts One through Five of the indictment, arguing that the language of the Espionage Act has well-established meaning and the First Amendment does not apply to the retention of documents by a government employee.
-
Drake Resp. to Gov't Mot. in Lim. re: Disclosure of Classified Information, United States v. Drake, No. 1:10-cr-00181 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2011)
Drake's response brief to Government's motion in limine to exclude evidence or defense attacking the legality of the regulatory scheme relating to the disclosure of classified information, indicating no intent to challenge the rules governing classification but instead to focus its defense on whether the specific documents in question were classified.