The US Supreme Court has temporarily halted a contempt order that would force veteran investigative journalist Catherine Herridge to reveal her confidential sources or pay a daily fine of $800. The case, which has drawn widespread concern from press advocates, stems from a series of stories Herridge wrote for Fox News in 2017 about a US government investigation into Chinese American scientist Yanping Chen.
Legal Battle Over Source Protection
More than two years ago, US District Court Judge Christopher R Cooper held Herridge in civil contempt, ordering the steep daily fine unless she disclosed her sources. Herridge has since faced a series of defeats in the appeals process. On Tuesday, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a one-sentence ruling denying Herridge's plea to stay the February 2024 contempt order.
With time running out before the fine could take effect, Herridge's legal team filed a petition for a stay with the US Supreme Court on Friday. The petition was filed by Paul D Clement, a prominent appellate attorney who has also been retained by Disney to protest the Federal Communications Commission's investigation of the ABC broadcast The View.
Supreme Court Intervention
Chief Justice John Roberts responded to Herridge's petition by issuing a stay of the appeals court's rulings, giving the other party in the case, Yanping Chen, until 1 July to file a response. Fox News, Herridge's former employer, expressed satisfaction with the temporary stay. In a statement on Friday, the network said: "We are pleased with the supreme court's decision to temporarily stay the deeply troubling contempt order. Fox News stands firmly behind the first amendment and the principle that reporters must be able to do their jobs without the threat of crippling fines or forced exposure of their sources."
Chen's attorney, Andy Phillips, expressed confidence in his client's case. "Both the district and circuit courts have now ruled five times over that Ms Herridge has no privilege to continue to shield the identity of a federal official who broke the law and abused his or her position to cause harm to an American citizen by leaking protected materials," he said. "We are confident that the supreme court will reach the same result."
Background of the Case
The case originates from a Privacy Act lawsuit filed by Chen to uncover who provided information to Herridge about a US government investigation of Chen's background and an educational program she operated in Virginia. Although Herridge was not named in the lawsuit, Chen's lawyers argued that their client could only obtain justice if the journalist was compelled to reveal how she obtained information about the government's investigation.
Herridge, who worked at CBS News after leaving Fox, has refused to reveal her sources, believing it would be an abdication of her responsibility as a national security journalist. Press freedom groups have backed her position. Because there is no federal shield law protecting journalists from having to reveal their sources, the case highlights the vulnerable position of reporters covering sensitive stories with national implications.
It remains unclear whether Herridge would personally be responsible for the $800 daily fee or whether Fox News could cover it.
Press Freedom Implications
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, expressed optimism that the Supreme Court would take Herridge's petition seriously. "The supreme court should use this opportunity to make clear that plaintiffs and prosecutors cannot commandeer the fourth estate to help them build their cases," he said. "Reporter-source confidentiality is the lifeblood of investigative journalism. Whistleblowers in a position to expose abuses won't trust journalists to protect them, and won't come forward, if they believe reporters will be threatened with financial ruin for not outing them in court."
There are few past precedents for Herridge's situation. In 2005, then New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail after refusing to reveal a confidential source. The following year, a coalition of news organizations paid $750,000 to settle a lawsuit over reporting on an investigation of nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee, a resolution that came after five journalists were held in contempt and ordered to pay a daily fee of $500 until they revealed their sources.
