by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

“ To avoid incarceration, they need not persuade the district judge that any accusation against them is false; they need only abandon their unlawful resistence and testify before the grand jury. See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828 (1994) .
The better analogy is R. Enterprises, where the Supreme Court approved of ex parte proceedings to determine the reasonableness of grand jury subpoenas. ”

“ But factual similarities between this case and Branzburg prevent this court from recognizing a First Amendment privilege here. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 397 F.3d at 988 (Tatel, J., concurring) . Only the Supreme Court can limit or distinguish Branzburg on these facts.
Finally, petitioners offer no compelling reason to reconsider the panel’s ruling on the due process issue. Claiming a right to review evidence used to find them in contempt, petitioners object to the district court’s and panel’s reliance on ex parte submissions to determine that any conceivable privilege was overcome. ”

“ If the privilege is qualified, then ex parte review, far from violating due process, affords a critical protection to journalists: it permits the court to demand a detailed showing by the government that it has satisfied the criteria for overcoming the privilege.
I certainly understand petitioners’ preference for reviewing the evidence themselves, but given the “‘indispensable secrecy of grand jury proceedings,’” United States v. ”