Veteran investigative journalist Catherine Herridge has filed a last-ditch petition with the US Supreme Court to halt a contempt order that would force her to reveal confidential sources or pay a daily fine of $800. The case has drawn widespread concern from press advocates and highlights the vulnerability of reporters in the absence of a federal shield law.
Background of the case
The legal battle stems from a series of stories Herridge wrote in 2017 for Fox News about Chinese American scientist Yanping Chen. Chen filed a Privacy Act lawsuit to uncover who leaked information to Herridge about a US government investigation into Chen's background and an educational program she operated in Virginia. Although Herridge was not named in the lawsuit, Chen's lawyers argued that compelling Herridge to reveal her sources was necessary for their client to obtain justice.
In February 2024, US District Court Judge Christopher R Cooper held Herridge in civil contempt and ordered her to pay $800 per day until she disclosed her sources. Herridge has refused, citing her responsibility as a national security journalist to protect whistleblowers. Press freedom groups have backed her position.
Appeals process and Supreme Court petition
The case has moved slowly through the appeals process, with Herridge suffering a series of defeats. 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 contempt order. With time running out, 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 Chief Justice John Roberts responded by issuing a temporary stay of the appeals court's rulings, giving Chen until 1 July to file a response.
Fox News expressed support for Herridge in a statement: '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 response and press concerns
Chen's attorney, Andy Phillips, expressed confidence in the 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. We are confident that the supreme court will reach the same result.'
Press advocates have long been alarmed by the case. Because there is no federal shield law, the case shows the vulnerable position of reporters covering sensitive national stories. It remains unclear whether Herridge would personally pay the $800 daily fine or if Fox News would cover it.
Historical precedents
There are few past precedents for Herridge's situation. In 2005, New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail for 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, after five journalists were held in contempt and ordered to pay $500 per day until they revealed their sources.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, expressed optimism that the Supreme Court would take the 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. 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.'
This article was amended on 26 June 2026. An earlier version of the headline incorrectly implied that Catherine Herridge was American; she is Canadian.
