Supreme Court rejects bid to spare Catherine Herridge fines
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to block $800-a-day fines against journalist Catherine Herridge, leaving a civil contempt order in place after she declined to name confidential sources behind 2017 Fox News stories about Chinese American scientist Yanping Chen. The unsigned order gave no reason, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he would have granted a stay.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court denied Catherine Herridge's emergency bid to pause daily contempt fines while her source-protection fight continues.
- U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper imposed the $800-per-day penalty after ruling Chen's lawsuit needs outweighed Herridge's reporter privilege.
- Chief Justice John Roberts had briefly frozen the fines; Thursday's order lets them resume as the underlying Privacy Act case proceeds.
- Lower courts have repeatedly rejected Herridge's qualified First Amendment privilege claims in the Chen leak dispute.
- The ruling does not finally settle whether she must disclose sources, but it removes a key shield against escalating sanctions.
What did the Supreme Court decide about Catherine Herridge?
The high court rebuffed an emergency appeal from Catherine Herridge, a veteran investigative reporter formerly with Fox News. According to The New York Times, the justices denied her request to stay the contempt fines without explaining their reasoning.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted he would have granted the stay. Chief Justice John Roberts had earlier issued a short-term hold while the court reviewed the matter, but that protection ended with Thursday's decision.
Why is Catherine Herridge facing $800-a-day fines?
The penalties stem from a Privacy Act lawsuit Yanping Chen filed against the federal government. Chen, who founded the University of Management and Technology in Virginia, alleges officials leaked details of an FBI investigation into her 1980s immigration disclosures. She was never charged.
After depositions failed to identify the leaker, Chen subpoenaed Herridge for her 2017 reporting on Chen's ties to the Chinese military. Herridge appeared under oath but refused to name her sources. Judge Cooper held her in civil contempt in February 2024, and the D.C. Circuit upheld the order.
As The Washington Post reported, Cooper concluded Chen's need for the information in her civil case outweighed Herridge's interest in protecting confidential sources.
How could this affect journalists in the digital era?
The case lands as newsrooms rely on confidential tips to report on government data, immigration records, and national security leaks that can spread online within hours. Herridge's reporting drew on sensitive federal investigative material that Chen says was disclosed in violation of the Privacy Act.
Lower courts applied a First Amendment balancing test and sided with Chen, signaling that reporter privilege offers limited protection in federal civil cases when a plaintiff needs source identities to pursue damages. That framework matters for investigative teams working across digital platforms where anonymity is both easier to promise and harder to enforce.
For more on how law, technology, and accountability intersect, see our Future Tech & AI Wonders coverage.
What happens next for Catherine Herridge?
Thursday's order addressed only whether fines should be paused, not the ultimate question of compelled disclosure. Herridge could continue fighting the underlying contempt ruling through additional appeals.
According to Politico, the Supreme Court's denial leaves Herridge exposed to accumulating daily sanctions while the Fox News source fight continues.
Until a court reverses Cooper's order or the parties settle, Herridge remains on the hook for fines for shielding her sources.