Catherine Herridge’s Supreme Court Fight Over Source Confidentiality

Veteran journalist Catherine Herridge, 62, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a contempt order that requires her to pay daily fines for refusing to reveal sources in a lawsuit stemming from 2017 reporting on Chinese-American scientist Yanping Chen. Judge Christopher R. Cooper clarified that Herridge need not pay the fines until the Supreme Court decides her petition. If the petition fails, the sanctions could continue indefinitely, potentially reaching $5,000 per day under a motion filed by Chen’s team.

The Guardian

The case began when Chen sued four federal agencies under the Privacy Act, alleging unlawful disclosure of her personal information to a journalist. After depositions, Chen’s attorneys could not locate the source who provided the leak and sought a court order compelling Herridge, who was only a witness, to identify that source. The district court held Herridge in contempt for refusing, imposing daily monetary penalties and a requirement to disclose the source.

The Guardian

Attorney Andrew Phillips argues that Chen’s rights as a citizen outweigh any journalistic privilege, stating 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.” Press-freedom advocates counter that forcing journalists to become evidence against the government threatens investigative reporting. “Allowing civil litigants to commandeer journalists to help them prove their cases is arguably even more harmful than letting the government do so,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Herridge maintains that journalists should not be compelled to provide evidence against the government, emphasizing the broader risk to source protection.

The Guardian

The network highlighted its support as a stand for the First Amendment. “This is a landmark first amendment case – probably one of the most important first amendment cases in two decades,” said Herridge.

The Guardian

• “Reporter-source confidentiality is the lifeblood of investigative journalism,” — Seth Stern, Freedom of the Press Foundation

The Guardian

• “I built my career on developing confidential sources, and the day I disclose, my career is over,” — Catherine Herridge

The Guardian

These statements illustrate the clash between government-initiated discovery and the longstanding journalistic principle that source confidentiality is essential to holding power accountable. The Supreme Court’s decision could reshape the legal landscape for Washington, D.C. reporters, who currently lack a shield law protecting them from such subpoenas.

The Guardian