Supreme Court Allows $800/Day Fine for Journalist Protecting Source

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday declined to intervene in the contempt case against veteran investigative journalist Catherine Herridge, allowing an $800-per-day fine to continue for her refusal to reveal a confidential source. The decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal tension between press freedom and individual privacy rights under the Privacy Act.

Chief Justice John Roberts had temporarily paused the fine while the Court considered Herridge’s emergency appeal. On July 2, the full Court denied the stay application, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted as the sole justice supporting Herridge’s request, according to AP News.

The Case at a Glance

The dispute stems from a series of reports Herridge published for Fox News in 2017 examining Yanping Chen, a Chinese American scientist and founder of the University of Management and Technology in Virginia. The stories questioned whether Chen was using her institution to help the Chinese government gather intelligence on American servicemembers, relying on materials leaked from an FBI counterintelligence investigation.

The FBI probe lasted six years but never resulted in any charges against Chen. In 2018, she sued the FBI and the Justice Department, alleging violations of the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits federal agencies from disclosing private information about individuals without their consent. Chen claims the leaks destroyed her personal and professional life, leading to hate mail and death threats.

Legal Standoff

Chen’s lawyers issued a subpoena for Herridge to disclose the names of her sources in a deposition. When Herridge refused, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington held her in civil contempt. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the order in September 2025, and the $800-per-day fine was set to begin.

As Wikipedia notes, Herridge is a Canadian-born, Harvard- and Columbia-educated journalist who spent 23 years at Fox News as chief intelligence correspondent before joining CBS News in 2019. She was laid off from CBS in February 2024 during Paramount Global budget cuts.

Reactions and Implications

Fox News Media expressed “deep disappointment” with the Court’s decision, stating in a statement that “protecting the confidentiality of journalistic sourcing and the integrity of the newsgathering process is fundamental to a free and functioning democracy.” The network said it would review options to “further fight this injustice.”

Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, criticized the financial burden placed on journalists, arguing that “journalists facing contempt should not have to muster large payments to the court while they seek to vindicate First Amendment rights.” He warned that forcing reporters to betray source confidences “always has a harmful impact on the free flow of information to the public.”

Andrew Phillips, attorney for Yanping Chen, countered that “Dr. Chen, like any other American citizen, is entitled to discover the identity of the federal official(s) who abused their access to an American’s private information and leaked it to cause her harm.” He argued that such conduct is “exactly what the Privacy Act was designed to address,” as reported by International Business Times.

Broader Significance

The United States does not have a comprehensive federal shield law protecting journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources. While many states have enacted their own shield laws, federal courts rely on a patchwork of constitutional interpretations stemming from the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, which held that the First Amendment does not give journalists an absolute privilege to refuse subpoenas.

The Herridge case has become a landmark test of this legal framework. Press freedom advocates warn that compelling journalists to reveal sources could have a chilling effect on whistleblowers and investigative reporting, particularly on national security matters. Legal experts note that the case has renewed calls for a federal shield law, though previous attempts at such legislation have failed to pass Congress.

What’s Next

Herridge may pursue further appeals, potentially raising constitutional questions not addressed in the emergency application. Meanwhile, the $800-per-day fine will continue to accumulate, creating increasing financial pressure. The broader litigation in Chen v. FBI will continue in lower courts, and the case is expected to remain a focal point in ongoing national debates about press freedom, government transparency, and privacy rights.

As Legal United States observed, regardless of how future proceedings unfold, this litigation has already become one of the most significant modern cases involving confidential sources in federal court.