The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued an important decision that strengthens protections for journalists and reinforces the right to gather and report news in our state. In Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, 23 N.W.3d 554 (Minn. 2025), the Court confirmed that Minnesota’s Free Flow of Information Act (MFFIA) offers broad safeguards to reporters—even in situations where their work is alleged to overlap with contentious or controversial events.
What the Court Decided
Energy Transfer, a company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, sought to compel journalists with Unicorn Riot to disclose materials related to their coverage of pipeline protests. Energy Transfer argued that because it believed some of the reporting involved trespass or other unlawful activity, the statutory protections for journalists should not apply.
The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected that argument. It ruled that the Legislature created only two narrow exceptions to the MFFIA privilege, and courts are not free to invent new ones. Allegations of unlawful conduct are not enough to strip reporters of their statutory protection. In plain terms, journalists in Minnesota cannot be forced to hand over notes, recordings, or other unpublished materials simply because their reporting makes powerful interests uncomfortable.
The Court also addressed the use of privilege logs—lists of documents withheld on the basis of privilege. While a court may require such a log, judges must carefully consider whether doing so would place an undue burden on a journalist or risk exposing protected information.
Although not discussed at length in this opinion, something important to keep in mind is that Minnesota rules of court put the burden on the party issuing the subpoena to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on the person responding. This means that parties responding to a subpoena frequently request payment for their time before searching for relevant documents. For a party eager to receive the production, it often makes more sense to simply pay what is asked rather than spend attorney’s fees arguing over the precise amount. This means that in this case, if the responding party insisted on payment before providing a privilege log, the court likely would have been supportive of that request.
Why This Matters
This ruling is a victory not just for journalists, but for the public. It ensures that those who gather the news—whether from major outlets or independent organizations—can continue to investigate and report on issues of public concern without fear of intimidation through the courts. A free press depends on protecting confidential sources and unpublished materials. Without those protections, important stories might never come to light.
How Our Firm Can Help
At Hellmuth & Johnson, we believe that strong legal advocacy protects both individual rights and the public interest. Whether you are a journalist facing a subpoena, a media organization navigating complex litigation, or a business needing to understand how these protections affect your case, our attorneys are ready to guide you through the legal landscape with clarity and confidence.
