United States v. Moloney, 685 F.3d 1

Belfast Project at Boston College housed oral-history interviews with IRA/paramilitary figures; donor/interviewee confidentiality promised, but agreements allowed disclosure
to the extent American law allows

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moloney and McIntyre have private rights under the US-UK MLAT or §3512	Moloney/McIntyre seek private rights to block or constrain subpoenas	MLAT text creates no private rights	No private rights under the treaty or §3512
APA viability to review MLAT compliance	APA provides judicial review for agency action	Treaty precludes judicial review, no operative domestic law basis	APA claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
District court discretion to quash subpoenas	District court abused discretion by not quashing	Balancing favored enforcement; discretion not abused	No reversible error; district court did not abuse discretion
Constitutional First Amendment claims	Confidentiality and academic research privilege protect against disclosure	Branzburg controls; no First Amendment privilege for academics here	Claims fail; dismissed under Branzburg framework

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1972) (no general reporter's privilege; government interests prevail)
University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1990) (no First Amendment or common-law privilege for peer-review materials in subpoena)
In re 840 140th Ave. NE, 634 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2011) (MLATs generally do not create private rights; §1782 distinctions)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 646 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2011) (MLAT privacy/private-right questions; no private right act)
United States v. Li, 206 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2000) (treaties generally do not create privately enforceable rights)
Mora v. New York, 524 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2008) (private rights under treaties require express language)
McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2003) (public-private balance in prosecutions with foreign cooperation)