Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996)
Jaffee v. Redmond is the seminal U.S.
Does federal common law, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, recognize a psychotherapist–patient privilege that protects confidential communications (including therapy notes) from compelled disclosure in federal proceedings, and does that privilege extend to licensed social workers?
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 501, federal courts develop privilege law in light of reason and experience. The Supreme Court recognizes a psychotherapist–patient privilege protecting confidential communications between a patient and a licensed psychotherapist—including psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers—made in the course of diagnosis or treatment. The privilege belongs to the patient, covers both testimony and records reflecting those communications (such as therapy notes), and is not subject to ad hoc case-by-case balancing of evidentiary need. The Court left unresolved any narrow exceptions not presented in the case (e.g., communications revealing serious threats of harm).
Yes. The Supreme Court held that federal common law recognizes a psychotherapist–patient privilege under Rule 501. The privilege protects confidential communications between patients and psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers made in the course of diagnosis or treatment, including therapy notes. It is not overcome by a case-specific balancing of need. The Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with recognition of the privilege.
Jaffee is the authoritative statement that a psychotherapist–patient privilege exists in federal court under Rule 501 and that it extends to licensed social workers. It guides federal litigation across civil and criminal contexts by clarifying that confidential therapeutic communications and related notes are protected and that courts should not employ a case-by-case balancing test to pierce the privilege. For students, it illustrates the methodology by which the Supreme Court shapes federal common law privileges, the weight given to state-law consensus, and the policy tradeoffs that justify evidentiary exclusions to advance broader societal interests.