Key keywords: Supreme Court, confidential source, journalist fine, press freedom, First Amendment, source protection, reporter shield law, grand jury leak On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling declining to hear an appeal from freelance investigative reporter Sarah Moore, who has spent two years fighting a lower court order requiring her to disclose the anonymous source who provided her with sealed grand jury documents related to a 2022 public corruption investigation into the Phoenix Police Department. Moore published a series of award-winning reports in 2022 revealing that Phoenix police officers had falsified evidence to secure wrongful convictions against 17 low-level drug defendants, relying on internal records that had been sealed by the Maricopa County Superior Court as part of an ongoing grand jury review of the misconduct. Prosecutors demanded Moore name her source shortly after the reports were published, arguing the leak compromised the integrity of the grand jury proceeding and put two minor confidential witnesses listed in the documents at high risk of retaliation from corrupt current and former police officers. When Moore refused, citing her longstanding ethical obligation to protect the anonymity of sources who risk professional and personal harm to expose public wrongdoing, a state judge ordered her to pay a $1,200 daily fine until she complies. As of the Supreme Court’s ruling, accrued fines have already exceeded $87,000, and Moore has stated she will continue to refuse to name her source even if the fine forces her to declare bankruptcy. In its brief order rejecting Moore’s appeal, the conservative majority of justices argued that no existing federal precedent grants journalists absolute immunity from court orders to disclose sources when the information is deemed directly relevant to an active criminal investigation. The three liberal dissenting justices, however, warned that the ruling would have a severe chilling effect on investigative journalism nationwide, as sources will be far less likely to come forward with evidence of government misconduct if they cannot trust that their identities will remain protected. The ruling has sparked widespread outcry from press freedom organizations, including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which released a joint statement calling the decision “a catastrophic setback for the public’s right to hold powerful institutions accountable.” Multiple media trade groups have renewed calls on Congress to pass a federal reporter shield law, which would establish uniform protections for journalists and their sources across all U.S. jurisdictions. Currently, 49 states and the District of Columbia have some form of shield law for journalists, but protections vary widely by state, and no binding federal standard exists. Supporters of the ruling, including several national law enforcement advocacy groups, argue that the decision strikes a reasonable balance between press freedom and the government’s obligation to uphold the rule of law and protect vulnerable members of the public from harm.