New York ? Even though he was threatened with jail, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper said he hoped his company would not supply his notes to a prosecutor probing the leak of a CIA officer’s name.

On Thursday, however, Time Inc. did just that, breaking ranks with its own reporter, as well as with The New York Times, which also has a reporter facing jail time for refusing to cooperate with investigators.

“The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments,” Time said in a statement.

The publisher of The New York Times said the paper was “deeply disappointed.”

Representatives for both Cooper and Judith Miller of the Times said they believed turning over the notes and other materials would eliminate the need for them to testify before a grand jury and remove any justification for jailing them.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters’ appeal, and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. If jailed, the reporters would be freed then.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.’s editor in chief, said: “The Supreme Court made its ruling. Once it made its ruling there was no other choice but to comply. I feel we are not above the law.”

But Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the newspaper’s publisher, noted that one of its reporters served 40 days in jail in 1978 in a similar dispute.

“We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.’s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records,” he said in a statement. “Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time.”

Unlike Time Inc., the newspaper itself is not a defendant because it did not publish anything. Miller did some reporting but did not write a story, while Cooper wrote a story about CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Neither Miller nor Cooper was immediately available for comment.

Legislation has been introduced in Congress to protect reporters from having to identify their confidential sources. So-called shield laws already exist in at least 31 states and the District of Columbia.