role of judicial review as much as the legitimacy and political ramifications of the public's right to know. The following chapters explore the legitimacy of the public's right to know as a concrete constitutional right under the First Amendment in terms of constitutional history, judicial politics, and developing constitutional law as well as considerations of public policy.

NOTES

1. See Francis E. Rourke. Secrecy & Publicity: Dilemmas of Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966); Norman Dorsen and Stephen Gillers, eds., None of Your Business: Government Secrecy in America (New York: Viking Press, 1974); Miles Beardsley Johnson, The Government Secrecy Controversy (New York: Vantage Press, 1967); David Wise. The Politics of Lying (New York: Random House. 1976); and David Wise and Thomas B. Ross. The Invisible Government (New York: Random House, 1964).

2. See David M. Alpern and Diane Camper, "The Court and the Press." Newsweek. June 26, 1978. at 12: Jonathan Kwitny, "A Judicial War on the Press?" Wall Street Journal, August 23, 1978 at 12; and Editors, “High Court No Friend of the Media." Broadcasting, July 10, 1978, at 22 23.

3. United States v. The Progressive, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 990, 994. 996 (1979).

4. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), discussed in Chapter 5. 5. Kent Cooper. The Right to Know (New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1956) iv. 16 (emphasis added).

6. Max Weber. "Bureaucracy,” in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. H H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946) 232 35.

7. James R. Wiggins, Freedom or Secrecy New York: Oxford University Press, 1956) 34. See also James R. Wiggins, "The Role of the Press in Safeguarding The People's Right to Know Government Business," 40 Marquette Law Review 74 (1956).

8. Harold L. Cross, The People's Right to Know (Morningside Heights, NY.: Columbia University Press, 1953) 198.

9. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC § 1002 (1964), 60 Stat. 238 (1946).
10. Housekeeping Statute, 5 USC § 301. I Stat. 28, 49, 65, 68 (1789).

H. See, for example, U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations. Availability of Information from Federal Departments and Agencies, Hearings, 84th Cong., Ist Sess. 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958); U S., Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Freedom of Information and Secrecy in Government, Hearings, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958); U.S.. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Amending Section 161 of Revised Statutes With Respect to Authority of Federal Officers and Agencies to Withhold Information and Limit Availability of Records, Senate Report 85-1621. 35th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958); U.S., Congress, House. Committee on Government Operations, Availability of Information from Federal Departments and Agencies. Department of Defense. 27th Report House Report 85-1884, 85th Cong., 28 Sess. (1958); U.S.. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Freedom of Information and Secrecy in Government. Hearings, 86th Cong., Ist Sess (1959); U.S., Congress, House. Committee on Government Operations. Availability of Information from Federal Departments and Agencies (Progress of Study, August 1958 July 1959), 12th Report. House Report 86-1137. 36th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959); U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations. Avantability of Information from Federal Departments and Agencies (the First Five Years and Progress of Study. August 1959 July 1960), 24th Report. House Report 86-2084, 86th Cong.. 28 Sess (1960).

12. Department of Defense, Availability of Information from Federal Departments and Agencies, House Report 85-1884, 5, 10, 45, 125.

13. U.S., Congress, Senate. Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Report 89-813. 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1965); and U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights, Freedom of Information Act and Amendments of 1974-Sourcebook: Legislative History, Texts and Other Documents, Committee Print, 94th Cong., Ist Sess. (1975).

14. Louis Henkin, "The Right to Know and The Duty to Withhold: The Case of The Pentagon Papers." 120 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 271, 275 (1971).

15. See Thomas C. Hennings, Jr.. "The People's Right to Know,” 45 American Bar Association Journal 667 (1959) and "The Executive Privilege and The Public's Right to Know." 19 Federal Bar Journal 1 (1959).

16. U.S., Congress. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure. Freedom of Information, Hearings on S. 1666 and S. 1663, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1964).

17. Lyndon Baines Johnson, Availability of Government Records and Information, Statement by the president on signing bill revising the public information provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (July 4, 1966) in 2 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 895 896 (1966).

18. See, generally. Kenneth Culp Davis. Discretionary Justice (Urbana, Ill.: University of Southern Illinois Press, 1969).

19. U.S.. Congress, Senate, S. 1663, Freedom of Information 3.

20. Freedom of Information Act. 5 USC § 552 (b) (1)-(9) (1974).

21. U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations. Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information, Administration of the Freedom of Information Act. House Report 92-1419, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1972).

22. Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973).

23. See, for example, Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 USC § 552b (1976); and Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 USC App. 1 (1973).

24. See, for example. Symposium, “The Freedom of Information Act a Decade Later,“ 39 Public Administration Review 310 (1979): "Developments Under the Freedom of Information Act -1978." 1979 Duke Law Journal 327; “Developments Under the Freedom of Information Act 1976," 1977 Duke Law Journal 532; “Developments Under the Freedom of Information Act 1974, 1975 Duke Law Journal 416; “Developments Under the Freedom of Information Act - 1973.” 1974 Duke Law Journal 251; “Developments Under the Freedom of Information Act- 1972.” 1973 Duke Law Journal 178; “Project: Federal Administrative Law Developments 1971. Freedom of Information." 1972 Duke Law Journal 136: "Project: Federal Administrative Law Developments 1970," 1971 Duke Law Journal 149.

25. See William R. Henrick, "Public Inspection of State and Municipal Executive Documents: "Everybody. Practically Everything, Anytime. Except..." 45 Fordham Law Review 1105 (1977); Lucille Amico, State Open Records Laws: An Update (Columbia, Missouri: Freedom of Information Center, 1976); and Wallis C. McClain, ed., 4 Summary of Freedom of Information and Privacy Laws of the 50 States, Access Reports. Report No. 3 (Washington, D.C.: Access Reports. October. 1978).

26. James F. O'Reilly, Federal Information Disclosure: Procedures, Forms and the Law (Colorado Springs. Shepard's, 1979) 2 13.

27. Ibid.

28. Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America, ed. Phillips Bradley (New York: Vintage, 1945) vol. 1. 156 157.

29. Cross, People's Right 132.

Loyal Livendations of the Hrginu.“

1976 Washington Hiversity tam Quarterly E: David M. Ivester, “The Constitutional Right to Kuu Hasangs Constitutional Law Review

YU.S. 541, 580 (1962) (Douglas, J., dis. op.); International Longshoremen's Ass Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn., 389 U.S. 64, 71 (1967): In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968); and Singh v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129. 130 (1968).

50. Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 502 (Douglas, J., dis. op.) (emphasis supplied). See also Morgan. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 18 (1938); and Greene v. Elroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496-97 (1959).

51. See David M. O'Brien. "The Fifth Amendment: Fox Hunters, Old Women, Hermits, and the Burger Court," 54 Notre Dame Lawyer 25, 35 41 (1978).

52. Zemel v. Rush. 381 U.S. 1. 16 17 (1965).

53. Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414 (1953).

54. Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 57, 671 (1957), quoting United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. I. 12 (1952). See also Jay. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 (1956); Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959); Alderman v. Uned States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969); McLucas v. DeChamplam, 421 U.S. 21 (1975). After Jench Congress limited and codified the decision with the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500 (1976) See U.S., Congress, Senate, Senate Report No. 981, 85th Cong.. Ist Sess. (1957).

55. See Allan Adler, The Graymail Tale: Ho Prosecutions Fail." 4 First Principles (March 1979); U.S.. Congress. Senate. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Subcommittee on Secrecy and Disclosure, National Security Secrets and the Administration of Justice, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (978); and U.S., Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Justice Depayment Handling of Cases Involving Classified Data and Claims of National Security, House Report 96-280, 96th Cong.. Ist Sess. (1979).

6. James Goodale, “Legal Pitfalls in The Right to Know," 1976 Washington University Law Quarterly 25, 33. See also George A. Benson, “The Essence of Our Freedom," 2American Editor 24 (1958).

57. See I'merson, LegalFoundations of the Right to Know, a 19 23.

58. Privacy Act, 5 USC § 552 (a) (1974). See also David M. O'Brien, Privacy, Law, and Public Policy (New York: Praeger, 1979), Chapter 6.

59. Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 1610 (1976) (Burger, C.J., dis. op.). See also David M. O'Brien, "Freedom of Information. Privacy, and Information Control: A Contemporary Administrative Dilemma." 39 Public Administration Review 323 (1979) and “Privacy and the Right of Access: Purposes and Paradoxes of Information Control." 30 Administrative Law Review 45 (1978). Also see Whalen v. Roe, 97 S.Ct. 869 (1977).

60. See Burdeaux. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 475 (1921), and O'Brien, Privacy, Law, and Public Policy at 35 88.

61. Wiseman v. Massachusetts, 398 U.S. 960. 961 (1970) (denial of cert.) (Harlan, J., dis. op.).

62. Ronald Dworkin, "Hard Cases,” 88 Harvard Law Review 1057, 1070 (1975). 63. Walter Gellhorn, "The Right to Know: First Amendment Overbreadth?" 1976 Washington University Law Review 25, 26.

64. See, for example, New York Times Co. v. United States. 403 U.S. 711, 749 (1971) (Burger, C. J., dis, op.j. Branzburg v. Haves, 408 U.S. 665, 684-85 (1972) (Douglas, J., dis, op.); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 643 (1972) (Douglas, J., dis, op.); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15. 44 (1973) (Douglas. J.. dis. op.); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 165 (1973) (Douglas, J., dis, op.); United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 87, 141 (1974) (Brennan, J., dis, op.); Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 141 (1974) (Brennan, J., dis, op ); Saxbe v. Washington Post, 417 U.S. 843,857 (1974) (Powell. J. dis, op.); Pell v. Procuiner, 417 U.S. 817, 840 41 (1974) (Douglas, J., dis, op.); Virginia State Board of Pharmacyy Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 785 (1976) (Rehnquist, J., dis op.). Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 237–38 (1976) (Burger, C.J., con. and dis op.). Houchins N. KOLD, 438 1, 35 (1978) (Stevens, J., dis, op.).

65. Thomas L. Imerson, "Colonial Intentions and Current Realities of the First Amendment." 125 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 737, 755 (1977)

The Ideal of Public Information

66. Emerson. "Legal Foundations of the Right to Know," at 2.

67. Emerson, "Colonial Intentions and Current Realities of the First Amendment." at 755. See also Thomas 1. Emerson. The System of Freedom of Expression (New York: Vintage Books, 1970) 94-95, 152, 463 65, 613-14, 649 50, 671 72.

68. Justice Douglas, in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482 (1965), stated that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."

69. The Fourteenth Amendment provides in part that "No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV. See, for example, Lockner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).

70. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (right of privacy). Also Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1941); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974) (recognizing the right to travel).

71. See Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951) and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (recognizing religious associations); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) and Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) (recognizing political associations); and NAACP v. Alabama. 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958) (recognizing a First Amendment right of associational privacy).

72. For a more extensive discussion see O'Brien, Privacy, Law, and Public Policy, Chapters 2 6.

73. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, at 508 (Black, J., dis. op.). See also Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 172 73 (1973) (Rehnquist, J., dis. op.).

74. See, generally, Harry Wellington. “Common Law Rules and Constitutional Double Standards." 83 Yale Law Journal 222 (1973): Henry Monaghan, "Constitutional Common Law. 84 Harvard Law Review 1 (1975); and Thomas S. Schrock and Robert C. Welsh, "Reconsidering The Constitutional Common Law," 91 Harvard Law Review 1117 (1978). 75. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 508 (1965) (Black, J., dis. op.).

CHAPTER 2

THE FOUNDING AND
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Like the course of the heavenly bodies, harmony in national life is a resultant of the struggle between contending forces. In frank expression of conflicting opinion lies the greatest promise of wisdom in governmental action; and in suppression lies ordinarily the greatest peril. Justice Louis Brandeis, Gilbert v. Minnesota (1919)

The principle of "consent of the governed" would have no meaning if public discussion were banned.

William O. Douglas. We the Judges (1956)

Does the public's right to know attain constitutional legitimacy in historical perspective? Is an enforceable constitutional right to know defensible in terms of the debates over adopting and ratifying the Constitution and, subsequently, over enacting the First Amendment?

The dilemma of claiming that a right to know is constitutionally implied disposes the press and some students of the Constitution to argue that "the founding fathers intended to guarantee the right to know per se, that is, that the First Amendment was specifically intended to extend to the people a directly enforceable right to know about governmental affairs." Lexical and psychohistorical difficulties in determining the framers' intent on any matter, however, suggest the more qualified claim that "the freedom of speech and press clauses were intended at least as instrumental means of securing and protecting the right to know. In other words, assuming the framers had no intent to create a directly enforceable right to know, they expected that the guarantee of freedom of speech and press would effectively secure the right of the people to know about their government."

An often cited testimonial by members of the press, constitutional scholars, and legislators is James Madison's eloquent statement: “A popular