Pulitzer Prize-winner, Mississippi Today reporter and Reflector alumna Anna Wolfe exposed the misuse of $77 million of federal welfare funds in a multi-part investigative piece for the local news outlet. The exposition of fraudulent spending that took Wolfe over five years to complete is now what may put her and her editor, Adam Ganucheau, behind bars.

In her eight-part series for Mississippi Today, “The Backchannel,” Wolfe uncovered how former Gov. Phil Bryant allegedly used his position and power to funnel federal dollars, meant for Mississippi’s poorest citizens, toward the benefit of his friends, family and his own endeavors.

Wolfe and Ganucheau sifted through text messages, public record requests, and emails and conducted several interviews over the course of five years. This ultimately led to the unveiling of Bryant’s and former NFL quarterback Brett Farve’s involvement in a massive criminal welfare scandal.

According to the evidence found between 2016 and 2019, “the trove of documents reveals the ease with which Bryant wielded his influence over the funding decisions of his eager-to-please welfare director. It also shows the lengths Bryant was willing to go to help his friend and retired NFL quarterback Brett Favre, who was the inspiration behind more than $8 million in improper welfare payments,” Wolfe wrote in the introduction to the series.

The entire exposé was finalized and published by the end of 2022, and the story quickly gained national recognition. However, neither Bryant nor any other subject involved in the scandal protested Wolfe’s findings.

The statute of limitations for defamation in Mississippi is one year, and Bryant’s attorney, William Quin II, sent Mississippi Today a notice of suit on May 10, 2023, several days after Wolfe was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

However, Bryant’s attorney stated that the lawsuit is not about the original reporting but the subsequent characterization of Bryant’s participation in the scandal.

This alleged characterization occurred when, after Wolfe was awarded the prize, Mississippi Today CEO Mary Margaret White misspoke and stated at a journalism conference that Bryant “embezzled” federal funds in Mississippi’s welfare. These are the remarks that resulted in the current lawsuit.

In Mississippi, embezzlement is a felony; however, Bryant has not been charged or convicted of such a crime. In response to the accusation, Quin notified Mississippi Today of his intention to sue and demanded retractions and apologies for White’s statement and a couple of other accusations made by Mississippi Today in two other articles.

White issued an apology to Bryant a few days after this request, but according to an interview with NBC News, Quin was not satisfied with her apology or the retracted statements.

In moving forward with the lawsuit, Quin is requesting the newspaper release the names of each source and all internal emails regarding the investigation in an attempt to prove “actual malice” to win the defamation case. But after the Madison County judge issued the court order for the names and documents to be handed over, Mississippi Today immediately filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court, claiming the order violates their First Amendment rights — freedom of the press.

Various states have enacted some level of “shield laws” to recognize the reporter’s privilege — the idea that journalists have a First Amendment right to protect their sources from being made public. However, Mississippi is not on that list. This will be “an issue of first impression” for the Mississippi Supreme Court, as it has never before considered a reporter’s privilege case until now.

Unless Mississippi Today’s appeal is successful and the state Supreme Court overturns the order, Wolfe and Ganuchaeu may face contempt of court charges for refusing to reveal their sources.

“Breaching the confidentiality of sources violates one of the most sacred trusts — and breaks one of the most vital tools — in investigative journalism,” Ganucheau wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed in response to the lawsuit. “No serious news organization would agree to this demand.”

Journalists often rely on confidential sources to come forward with information that might put their jobs at risk. Without Wolfe’s promise to her sources that they would remain confidential, the welfare scandal could still be going on unknowingly. Unnamed sources have been the keys to many government exposés, and if sources do not have the protection of anonymity they will be more likely to withhold crucial information.