Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shield Law Journalism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to shield journalists from subpoenas in Idaho
Summary
The House Judiciary committee voted unanimously to advance House Bill 158, a proposed state "shield" law that would limit court orders forcing reporters to disclose confidential sources; supporters said the measure protects whistleblowers and small newsrooms, while lawmakers questioned scope and national-security carveouts.
House Bill 158, which would create an Idaho reporter "shield" for confidential sources, moved out of the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee on a unanimous voice vote after testimony from reporters, press advocates and the bill sponsors.
Proponents told the committee the change is necessary because Idaho is one of the states that currently lacks an explicit shield law. "We are a growing problem," said Melissa Davelin, president of the Idaho Press Club, describing a rise in subpoenas seeking reporters' unpublished material. "I have seen more requests to help quash subpoenas in the last year than I have in all of my years combined." Davelin said subpoenas have come in both civil and criminal cases and from defense and prosecuting attorneys as well as private lawyers.
Supporters framed HB 158 as a narrowly targeted protection for newsgathering. "This is about protecting sources, which is incredibly important," Representative Marco Erickson (R-Idaho Falls) told the committee, and he cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) to explain why a statutory shield is needed despite First Amendment protections. "The First Amendment alone does not grant reporters the right to refuse to disclose their sources in court," Erickson said, summarizing the court’s balancing language and noting that many states enacted shield laws in response.
Editors and publishers from local outlets described the cost and practical strain of fighting subpoenas. Nate Sunderland, editor of East Idaho News, recounted spending two years and hiring counsel after a subpoena demanded his newsroom’s communications and recordings. "If an Idaho lawyer really wants to find out what a reporter and a source are talking about, there's a good chance they can do it with a subpoena," Sunderland told the committee, adding that the risk chills whistleblowers and other sources.
Ben Olson, co-owner and publisher of the Sandpoint Reader, and Don Day, co-founder of Elevate 208 Media, said small, independent newsrooms lack the resources to contest subpoenas and that the bill would level the playing field with larger outlets. Ken Burgess, representing the Idaho Press Club, framed HB 158 as complementary to recent anti-SLAPP legislation passed by the committee.
Committee members asked how the bill treats national security and information obtained illegally. Representative Alfieri said he worried that the term "national security" could be used too broadly; Davelin replied the draft includes a national-security exception because judges in other states have focused on that type of exemption. Committee member Representative Hostetler asked whether a shield could enable fabricated anonymous sources; Davelin answered that ethical journalists still face defamation exposure and that a shield would not protect invented claims.
After questions, Representative Alfieri moved to send HB 158 to the House floor with a due-pass recommendation; the committee voice vote carried unanimously. The bill will proceed to the full House for further consideration.
