In the Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. case, Dan Cohen, a political associate of a gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota provided confidential information to two newspapers on the condition that his identity would not be revealed. However, after publishing the story, both papers disclosed Cohen's name which led to him losing his job and reputation. He then sued for breach of contract under state law promissory estoppel doctrine (a promise is enforceable by law when a party justifiably relies on it). The media companies argued that they were protected by First Amendment rights as press freedom should allow them to publish truthful information obtained legally without fear of liability or punishment. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Cohen stating that although First Amendment protections are important, they do not exempt journalists from generally applicable laws such as those governing contracts and promises made during news gathering process. This ruling affirmed that while free speech is vital for democracy’s functioning; it does not provide absolute immunity against legal obligations or consequences arising out of journalistic practices.

In the dissenting opinion for Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., Justice Byron White, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the First Amendment should protect journalists from being sued for breaking promises of confidentiality to their sources. They contended that such a ruling would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and press because it could discourage potential whistleblowers from coming forward with important information out of fear their identities might be revealed against their will. The dissenters also pointed out inconsistencies in how different states handle these situations, arguing this inconsistency undermines the majority's claim that enforcing such promises is a matter of "generally applicable law." Furthermore, they suggested that punishing newspapers for breaching confidentiality agreements may violate constitutional prohibitions against laws “abridging the freedom...of the press.”