Cohen v Cowles Media Co. (1990)
1/20/2026
Samuel Clifford
Occasion: Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. arose during the 1982 Minnesota gubernatorial race, when Dan Cohen provided damaging information about an opposing candidate to reporters from two newspapers. The reporters explicitly promised him confidentiality. Despite that promise, the newspapers later published Cohen’s name, which led to his termination. Cohen sued under promissory estoppel, arguing that the newspapers should be held legally accountable for breaking their promise.
Legal Issue: The central question was whether a promise can be legally enforceable—even when the parties did not intend to create a formal, legally binding contract—and whether enforcing such a promise against a newspaper violates the First Amendment’s protections for the press.
Holding: At the trial level, the Minnesota District Court ruled in Cohen’s favor, finding the newspapers liable under promissory estoppel and awarding damages. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed liability but removed punitive damages. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed entirely, holding that enforcing the promise would violate the First Amendment because it would impose liability for publishing truthful information and could chill the press. The U.S. Supreme Court then reversed the Minnesota Supreme Court, holding that the First Amendment does not bar enforcement of a promise through a generally applicable state law such as promissory estoppel, and that Cohen could recover damages.
Reasoning: The U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning centered on the nature of promissory estoppel. Under Minnesota law, a promise may be enforced when the promisor should reasonably expect reliance, the promisee does rely, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement. Crucially, this doctrine does not require the parties to intend a legally binding contract. The default rule is that a promise is enforceable unless the parties take special care to disclaim legal enforceability, and the reporters made no such disclaimer. They simply promised confidentiality, Cohen relied on that promise, and he suffered harm when it was broken. Because promissory estoppel is a neutral, generally applicable rule that applies to everyone—not a law targeting the press—the Court held that enforcing it does not violate the First Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court had viewed enforcement as a penalty for publishing truthful information, but the U.S. Supreme Court reframed it as a consequence of breaking a voluntary promise that induced reliance. Thus, the First Amendment did not shield the newspapers from obligations that any other party would bear under ordinary state law.
Case File: