Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Order Against Journalist in Source Disclosure Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied emergency relief to former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge, allowing a lower court to impose daily fines of $800 until she complies with an order to disclose confidential sources related to a 2017 investigative story.

Herridge, who reported on FBI investigations into Dr. Yanping Chen, a Chinese American scientist, had refused to reveal her sources, citing First Amendment protections for journalistic confidentiality. She sought Supreme Court intervention after a federal judge ordered her in civil contempt for noncompliance, imposing sanctions in addition to prior rulings mandating source disclosure.

In a brief three-sentence order without explanation or voting breakdown, the Court declined Herridge’s request, underscoring its approach to emergency matters. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh explicitly dissented, arguing that the Court should have granted her appeals and urging a rehearing with full argument.

Herridge’s reporting detailed FBI inquiries into Chen’s alleged military ties to China and potential immigration fraud. The investigation concluded without charges a year before publication. In 2018, Chen filed a lawsuit under the Privacy Act against federal agencies, claiming they improperly shared her personal information. Herridge invoked constitutional protections against compelled disclosure, leading to the contempt charges.

U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper ruled that Chen’s legal needs superseded Herridge’s journalistic rights, stating that her refusal undermined court authority. He emphasized that the public interest in exposing unlawful conduct by government officials justified the order, though he acknowledged the tension between judicial compliance and press freedom.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt ruling, with a divided panel split on balancing competing interests. The case has ignited debate among media organizations and legal scholars over the erosion of shield laws and the chilling effect on national security reporting.

Herridge’s attorneys argued that revealing her sources would compromise the credibility of journalists and deter future whistleblowers from sharing information with reporters. They warned the ruling threatens investigative journalism by prioritizing plaintiff access over constitutional press protections. Separately, Herridge has requested the Supreme Court review the case’s underlying merits, seeking broader clarification on source confidentiality.

Fox News expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome, with a spokesperson stating the organization will pursue legal avenues to defend First Amendment principles. Lead counsel for Chen, Andrew Phillips, hailed the decision, contending it safeguards citizens’ rights to uncover government misconduct.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which supported Herridge, criticized the financial burden on journalists facing contempt. President Bruce D. Brown emphasized that forcing reporters to betray sources undermines transparency and public access to vital information.

Source link