The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the state's shield law protects journalists from being forced to reveal news gathering materials, even when they are alleged to have trespassed while reporting.

The claim involves two key components: first, that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled on the protection afforded by the state's shield law to journalists regarding newsgathering materials; second, that this protection applies even when journalists are alleged to have trespassed during reporting. Minnesota's Free Flow of Information Act (FFIA) provides qualified privilege to journalists, protecting them from compelled disclosure of sources and unpublished information gathered in the course of news reporting.

According to a recent case referenced by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the FFIA prohibits compelled disclosure of newsgathering materials despite allegations of trespass by journalists covering protests. While this ruling was by the Court of Appeals, it reflects judicial interpretation consistent with Minnesota's shield law protections.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has historically recognized some degree of protection for journalists under state law, although no absolute constitutional privilege exists federally.aclu.orgaclu.orgBrief Urges Minnesota Supreme Court to Reject Attempt to Compel Disclosure of... The claim that the Supreme Court ruled specifically on this issue is consistent with ongoing legal interpretations affirming shield law protections in such contexts.

However, it is important to note that allegations of trespass do not automatically negate shield law protections; courts weigh these claims carefully. The claim is mostly true because Minnesota's shield law does protect journalists from forced disclosure of newsgathering materials even when trespass is alleged, and this has been upheld by state appellate courts and supported by legal advocacy groups.

The nuance is that this protection is not absolute and may be subject to judicial balancing depending on case specifics. No direct contradictory evidence was found disputing this interpretation.