Catherine Herridge, a veteran investigative journalist who broke national security stories for Fox News and CBS, has asked the Supreme Court to halt a contempt order that would fine her $800 daily unless she identifies sources behind stories she wrote in 2017.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay this week, giving the other party in the case until July 1 to file a response. The ruling suggests the court found merit in Herridge's arguments, though it does not guarantee success.
Herridge faces the contempt fine in a lawsuit filed by Yanping Chen, a Chinese American scientist, who is trying to uncover who leaked information about a government investigation into Chen's background and educational program in Virginia. Chen's legal team has argued five times in district and appeals courts that Herridge must reveal her federal source.
Herridge refuses to identify her source, arguing that doing so would betray investigative journalism's fundamental principles. Press freedom advocates have warned that allowing journalists to be forced to reveal sources could prevent whistleblowers from trusting the media with sensitive information.
"The Supreme Court should prevent plaintiffs and prosecutors from weaponizing journalists to advance their own legal battles," Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement.
Fox News issued a statement praising the Supreme Court's temporary stay and reaffirming its commitment to First Amendment principles. It remains unclear whether the daily fine would fall on Herridge personally or be absorbed by the network.
The case highlights a gap in federal law. While many states have shield laws protecting journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources, no federal shield law exists. This absence has created a chilling effect on reporting involving national security, government wrongdoing and other sensitive matters.
Judith Miller, then a New York Times reporter, spent 85 days in jail in 2005 after refusing to identify a source. Years later, five journalists faced contempt orders and $500 daily fines while reporting on an investigation into nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee. That case settled when news organizations pooled resources to pay $750,000.
Herridge's case represents a critical moment for American journalism, determining whether the reporter-source relationship will be protected as essential to a functioning press or whether courts will view journalists as tools available to litigants seeking information.
