The War On News

A record of government actions against journalism and fact-based reporting, from the first press laws to today

Incident

United States: Espionage Act conviction of Samuel Loring Morison for leaking satellite photographs to Jane's Defence Weekly, 1985 to 1988

United StatesRSF 2026 rank: 64th of 180

Engraving of an empty press briefing room with a lectern and rows of chairs

Naval intelligence analyst Samuel Loring Morison was convicted under the Espionage Act after he sent classified satellite photographs to a British defense publication in 1984. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld his conviction in 1988, rejecting his argument that giving the images to the press was protected by the First Amendment.1234

What happened

Samuel Loring Morison worked as an intelligence analyst at the Naval Intelligence Support Center in Suitland, Maryland, where he had access to classified material and had signed a nondisclosure agreement as a condition of his employment. In 1984 he sent two classified KH-11 satellite photographs showing construction of a Soviet Kiev-class aircraft carrier to Jane's Defence Weekly, a British publication on military affairs, which published them. Federal prosecutors charged Morison under two sections of the Espionage Act of 1917, one covering disclosure of national defense information to a foreign government and one covering disclosure to any other recipient, including a news organization, along with a separate federal charge of theft of government property. A jury convicted him on all counts. On appeal, Morison argued that applying the Espionage Act to a disclosure made to a news organization violated the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the federal appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia, rejected that argument. Writing for the court, Judge Donald Stewart Russell held that the Espionage Act's disclosure provisions applied to the press as well as to foreign governments, and the court affirmed the conviction in 1988. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the case.123564789

What reason was given

Stated justification

The Fourth Circuit said the Espionage Act's disclosure provisions were not limited to transmissions to foreign governments, and it separately described the related federal law Morison was also convicted under as "a criminal statute covering the theft of government property."6

What changed for reporting

Citing Branzburg v. Hayes, a 1972 Supreme Court decision, the Fourth Circuit said journalists had no special protection simply because they were transmitting information to the media, leaving the source of a leak, rather than the publication that printed it, open to an Espionage Act prosecution.579

Timeline

1985

1985
United States: Espionage Act conviction of Samuel Loring Morison for leaking satellite photographs to Jane's Defence Weekly, 1985 to 1988

Who acted

NameRole in this incidentOffice at the time
Donald Stewart RussellruledJudge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States Department of JusticeenforcedFederal executive department

Outlets and journalists

NameKindRelation
Jane's Defence Weeklyoutletaffected

Sources

  1. United States v. Morison (4th Cir.) (1988)The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009, reporting. Source record
  2. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1972, primary. Source record

Claims and evidence

Each numbered claim quotes the source it rests on.

  1. The government prosecuted Morison after identifying him as the source of the leaked photographs.The government successfully prosecuted Morison after he was identified as the source of this information.United States v. Morison (4th Cir.) (1988), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 772, checked 2026-09-26.
  2. Morison held a security clearance at the Naval Intelligence Support Center and had signed an agreement not to disclose classified information.Samuel Loring Morison had been employed by the Naval Intelligence Support Center at Suitland, Maryland, where he had access to classified information. As part of his employment, he had signed a nondisclosure agreement.United States v. Morison (4th Cir.) (1988), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 773, checked 2026-09-26.
  3. The leaked photographs showed a Soviet aircraft carrier under construction and were published by Jane's in 1984.It shows construction of a Kiev-class aircraft carrier, as published by Jane's in 1984.United States v. Morison (4th Cir.) (1988), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 774, checked 2026-09-26.
  4. The court separately upheld Morison's conviction on the related federal charge of theft of government property.a criminal statute covering the theft of government propertyUnited States v. Morison (4th Cir.) (1988), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 777, checked 2026-09-26.
  5. Morison leaked the satellite photographs to Jane's Defence Weekly.This photo is one of two KH-11 photos leaked to Jane's Defence Weekly.United States v. Morison (4th Cir.) (1988), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 775, checked 2026-09-26.
  6. Judge Russell explained that different sections of the Espionage Act covered disclosure to foreign governments and disclosure to others, including the press.Writing for the court, Judge Donald Stewart Russell noted that section (d) of the Espionage Act dealt with the transmission of information to foreign governments while section (e) dealt with the transmission of this information to others, such as the press.United States v. Morison (4th Cir.) (1988), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 776, checked 2026-09-26.
  7. The court held that transmitting information to the media does not give a source special constitutional protection.He cited Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) for the principle expressed there that journalists had no special protection simply because they were transmitting information to the media.United States v. Morison (4th Cir.) (1988), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 778, checked 2026-09-26.
  8. Morison's case ended with a presidential pardon after the Supreme Court declined to hear it.The Supreme Court declined to hear Morison’s case, but he was later pardoned by President Bill Clinton.United States v. Morison (4th Cir.) (1988), The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009.Claim 779, checked 2026-09-26.
  9. The Fourth Circuit's ruling rested on Branzburg v. Hayes, in which the Supreme Court had held that reporters must respond to grand jury subpoenas the same as other citizens.The sole issue before us is the obligation of reporters to respond to grand jury subpoenas as other citizens do and to answer questions relevant to an investigation into the commission of crime.Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1972.Claim 780, checked 2026-09-26.