Tom Goldstein's trial, initially notable for its bizarre backstory involving poker and tax evasion, has taken a surprising turn with a First Amendment subplot that's captivating legal observers. The drama intensified when the government subpoenaed journalists Jeffrey Toobin and Rudy Lee over their investigative article in *New York Times Magazine* discussing Goldstein, a former SCOTUSblog founder.

Politico's Josh Gerstein first reported the subpoena, which has prompted a strong pushback from Toobin and Lee, represented by Ballard Spahr. They've filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that forcing journalists to testify could chill future investigative reporting. This move by the DOJ comes amidst other aggressive actions against the press, such as raids on reporters' homes, signaling a troubling trend for journalism and public discourse.

The crux of the issue lies in the article published last December, where Goldstein, despite facing charges, chose to speak on the record. The government sought to use his statements from the article as evidence, citing their relevance to the charges of making false statements. However, Goldstein countered that these quotes were hearsay and, thus, inadmissible.

The court's response to Goldstein's argument seemed to lean towards calling Toobin to the stand, giving the defendant a chance to cross-examine him. This development raises questions about the role of journalists in legal proceedings and the potential impact on their work's perceived neutrality.

The motion to quash further highlights the intricacies of press freedoms under the Constitution. While the Fourth Circuit doesn’t explicitly recognize a First Amendment privilege for journalists, it acknowledges the need to protect journalistic interests. Historical precedents suggest that involving journalists in legal battles against their sources could deter them from covering sensitive issues.

Interestingly, the material the government wishes to admit may not only be irrelevant but could potentially undermine their case against Goldstein. References in the article to personal matters and other non-pertinent details beg the question of their evidentiary value.

This case exemplifies the complex dance between maintaining a free press and enforcing the law. It also underscores the precarious position journalists occupy when their reporting intersects with major legal proceedings. As this case unfolds, it will undoubtedly continue to spark discussions about the balance between justice and journalistic freedom.