Court upholds contempt sanctions against Catherine Herridge in source fight

The Supreme Court declined to block an $800-a-day contempt sanction against Catherine Herridge, leaving the former Fox News reporter under pressure to identify a confidential source in a fight over leaked FBI records. Chief Justice John Roberts briefly stayed the fine before the full court refused to intervene on July 2, 2026, keeping the threat alive if Herridge continues to refuse.

The dispute traces back to 2017 Fox News reports about Yanping Chen, a Chinese-born, naturalized U.S. citizen who founded the University of Management and Technology in Virginia. Those stories said the Federal Bureau of Investigation examined statements Chen made on immigration forms about her work in China in the 1980s and possible ties to the Chinese military. Chen alleges federal officials improperly disclosed Privacy Act-protected FBI records, then subpoenaed Herridge in discovery to identify the source of the information published by Fox News.

U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held Herridge in civil contempt on February 29, 2024, and ordered her to pay $800 per day until she revealed her source. The fine was initially stayed to allow appeal. A later panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the contempt ruling and rejected Herridge’s claim that the First Amendment gave reporters a qualified privilege to keep a source confidential in this setting.

That sequence matters beyond one reporter and one lawsuit. Press-freedom advocates, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, backed Herridge and warned that enforcing contempt sanctions against a reporter for refusing to identify a source could chill national-security and investigative reporting. The practical effect is immediate: a reporter who promises confidentiality in a case touching an FBI investigation now knows a federal court can leave a daily fine in place while the source fight works its way through appeals.

The ruling also highlights the difference between statutory shield-law protections and the narrower path available in federal court. Many shield laws are designed to give reporters clearer protection against source disclosure demands, but Herridge’s case shows how little room remains when a federal judge treats source protection as subordinate to discovery in civil litigation. For journalists covering national security, immigration, or leaks from law enforcement files, the sanction is a warning that confidentiality promises can carry a personal financial cost when courts decide the source must be named.