More than two years ago, a U.S. district court judge held investigative journalist Catherine Herridge in civil contempt, ordering her to pay a daily fine of $800 unless she reveals the sources for a series of 2017 Fox News stories.
The case has progressed through the appeals process, resulting in a series of defeats for Herridge. On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a one‑sentence ruling denying her request to stay the February 2024 contempt order issued by District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper.
Facing a looming fine, Herridge’s legal team made a final effort to halt the penalty. On Friday, she filed a petition for a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court, represented by appellate attorney Paul D. Clement, who also represents Disney in an FCC investigation of “The View.”
Chief Justice John Roberts responded by granting a temporary stay of the appellate court’s rulings, giving the opposing party, Chinese‑American scientist Yanping Chen, until July 1 to file a response.
Press advocates have expressed deep concern about the case, which originated from a privacy‑act lawsuit filed by Chen to identify the source of information that Herridge used in reporting on a U.S. government investigation of Chen’s background and a Virginia education program. While Herridge was not named in the lawsuit, Chen’s attorneys argue that obtaining her sources is essential to their client’s pursuit of justice.
Herridge, who later worked at CBS News, has declined to reveal her sources, citing her duty as a national‑security reporter. Press‑freedom groups have supported her stance, noting the absence of a federal shield law and the vulnerability of journalists covering sensitive, high‑stakes stories.
It remains unclear whether Herridge personally would be liable for the $800 daily fine or if her former employer, Fox News, would be responsible for payment.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, expressed optimism that the Supreme Court will take the petition seriously.
“The Supreme Court should use this opportunity to affirm that plaintiffs and prosecutors cannot commandeer the fourth estate to advance their cases,” Stern told the Guardian. “Reporter‑source confidentiality is the lifeblood of investigative journalism. Whistleblowers will not come forward if they believe journalists will be threatened with financial ruin for protecting them.”
Historical precedents are limited. In 2005, New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail after refusing to disclose a confidential source. The following year, news organizations settled a lawsuit over reporting on nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee after five journalists were held in contempt and faced a $500‑per‑day fine.
