Supreme Court Upholds $800-a-Day Fine for Ex-Fox Reporter

The U.S. Supreme Court on July 2 declined to intervene in a case that has become a flashpoint for press freedom, allowing an $800-per-day contempt fine to take effect against former Fox News and CBS News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge for refusing to disclose her confidential sources. The decision, with only Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissenting, marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battle over journalist-source confidentiality in the United States.

Chief Justice John Roberts had previously issued a temporary stay to allow the full court to consider Herridge’s emergency appeal. The Associated Press reported that the court ultimately denied the bid, allowing the contempt order to take effect.

The Case at the Heart of the Dispute

The case stems from a series of 2017 Fox News reports by Herridge that examined the ties of Chinese American scientist Yanping Chen to the Chinese military. The reports relied on leaked FBI documents, personal photographs, and information from Chen’s immigration and naturalization forms. Chen was investigated by the FBI from 2010 to 2016 but was never charged.

In 2018, Chen sued the FBI and the Justice Department, alleging that federal officials violated the Privacy Act by leaking her private information to the press. During discovery, Chen’s legal team sought to compel Herridge to reveal who provided her with the leaked documents.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper held Herridge in civil contempt in February 2024 after she refused to answer questions about her sources during a deposition. The $800-per-day fine was set to begin after appeals were exhausted.

Legal Framework and Appeals

The United States does not have a federal shield law protecting journalists from being compelled to reveal their sources in federal court. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a September 2025 opinion by Judge Gregory Katsas joined by Judges Michelle Childs and Harry Edwards, rejected Herridge’s First Amendment reporter’s privilege claim. The court applied the framework established in Zerilli v. Smith (1981) and Lee v. DOJ (2005), which requires a litigant to demonstrate both that the information sought is central to the case and that reasonable alternative sources have been exhausted.

Herridge, represented by prominent appellate attorney and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court in late June. The Guardian reported that Roberts issued a temporary stay on June 26 to allow the court to consider the petition before the full court ultimately denied the application on July 2.

Reactions and Implications

Press freedom groups have rallied behind Herridge, warning that the decision could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism. Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said: “Journalists facing contempt should not have to muster large payments to the court while they seek to vindicate First Amendment rights. And forcing them to betray source confidences always has a harmful impact on the free flow of information to the public.”

Fox News Media expressed disappointment, stating: “Protecting the confidentiality of journalistic sourcing and the integrity of the newsgathering process is fundamental to a free and functioning democracy.”

Chen’s attorney, Andrew Phillips, defended the ruling, arguing that his client is entitled to discover the identity of the federal officials who leaked her private information. “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,” Phillips said. “That type of corrupt, unlawful conduct is exactly what the Privacy Act was designed to address.”

Historical Context

The case echoes previous confrontations between journalists and the courts over source confidentiality. In 2005, New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to reveal a confidential source in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case. The following year, a coalition of news organizations paid $750,000 to settle a lawsuit after five journalists were held in contempt and ordered to pay $500 per day until they revealed their sources in the Wen Ho Lee case.

What Comes Next

It remains unclear whether Herridge will continue to refuse to reveal her sources as the fines accumulate, or whether Fox News may provide financial support. The case has renewed calls for a federal shield law in Congress, though legislative action remains uncertain. The Supreme Court’s decision, while not a ruling on the merits of Herridge’s First Amendment arguments, allows the lower court order to stand and could influence how journalists and their sources approach confidentiality agreements in future investigations.

Seth Stern of the Freedom of the Press Foundation warned: “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.”

The case serves as a stark reminder of the legal vulnerabilities facing journalists in the absence of federal statutory protections, and the delicate balance between an individual’s right to legal redress and the public’s interest in a free and independent press.