The Battle Between Press Freedom and Government Power: My Take on United States v. Hernandez

As I read through the details of United States v. Hernandez, I couldn’t help but feel torn between two fundamental values: the power of a free press and the need for government accountability. This Harvard Model Congress case forced me to think about the real-world consequences of forcing journalists to reveal their sources.

At the heart of the case is Martinez, a journalist who uncovered government misconduct through confidential sources. The government, in response, demanded that she reveal those sources, arguing that the information was critical for an investigation. But here’s the problem—if journalists like Martinez are compelled to reveal their sources, what whistleblower would ever come forward again? What does that mean for our democracy?

The First Amendment is one of the most important pillars of American democracy. A free press ensures that power is kept in check, that corruption is exposed, and that people know what their government is doing behind closed doors. But this case challenged that very principle.

Justice Matheson’s majority opinion was a huge win for press freedom. The ruling emphasized that forcing Martinez to expose her sources would erode trust between journalists and the public, ultimately silencing those who might come forward with crucial information. The decision also reinforced shield laws, which exist to protect journalists in states like South Dakota from government overreach.

The most striking part of the ruling, in my opinion, was that the government didn’t even try every other option before going after Martinez. If the government truly needed this information, why didn’t they exhaust all other investigative methods first? That failure alone makes this ruling feel like the right call.

I’ll admit, I see the other side of the argument too. The respondent, Hernandez, made some compelling points. If journalists can indefinitely withhold sources, could that harm criminal investigations? Could it shield bad actors from justice? There’s also the real issue of witness safety—what happens if exposing a journalist’s source actually protects lives?

This is where the case becomes murky. Yes, press freedom is essential, but so is public safety and accountability. I can understand why the government wanted access to Martinez’s sources, but in this case, their lack of effort to obtain the information elsewhere weakens their argument.

One thing this case really highlighted for me is the uneven protection journalists have across the country. While Martinez was lucky that South Dakota’s shield laws protected her, not all journalists have that safety net. The fact that the U.S. still doesn’t have a federal shield law means that in a different state, Martinez could have been forced to reveal her sources, changing the outcome entirely.

This inconsistency worries me. Investigative journalism is already a difficult job—low pay, high risks, and increasing threats to journalists worldwide. If the law doesn’t protect them, who will?

This case left me feeling both hopeful and uneasy. On one hand, the ruling was a big win for press freedom, ensuring that journalists aren’t easily forced to expose their sources. But on the other hand, I can’t ignore the valid concerns about government investigations and public safety.

At the end of the day, I believe in a strong, independent press. Without it, corruption goes unchecked, and those in power face little scrutiny. If the government wants to force journalists to expose their sources, they should have to meet an extremely high burden of proof—something they failed to do in this case.

If this debate at Harvard Model Congress proved anything, it’s that the battle between press freedom and government power isn’t going away anytime soon. And honestly? It shouldn’t. These tensions, these debates, are exactly what keeps democracy alive.