Supreme Court Asked to Protect Reporters' Sources in Herridge Case

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to review a case involving former Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, who faces potential penalties for refusing to reveal confidential sources used in her reporting on a national security story from 2017. The legal battle centers on a lawsuit filed by Yanping Chen, an individual identified as a former colonel in the Chinese People's Liberation Army, who alleged privacy violations by government officials who spoke to Herridge.

Chen operated the University of Management and Technology (UMT) in Northern Virginia, which served U.S. service members. Investigators considered UMT a national security risk, suggesting it might gather information on military personnel. The Department of Justice did not prosecute Chen, but the government later terminated its contracts with UMT due to national security concerns.

Herridge's 2017 report included details that contradicted Chen's denials of being a PLA colonel, presenting photographic evidence and a whistleblower's testimony. Despite the nature of the reporting, Chen did not file a defamation suit. Instead, her legal team pursued a claim under the Privacy Act, accusing government officials of violating her privacy by serving as confidential sources to Herridge. This legal strategy led to Herridge being subpoenaed and subsequently held in contempt by a federal court.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered Herridge to identify her sources, imposing an $800 daily fine when she refused. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this order. Herridge's petition to the Supreme Court for a stay of the mandate was denied, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated he would have granted relief.

Herridge is now making a final appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking to have her case heard. Her legal team argues that the current legal standard, particularly the precedent set by the 1972 Supreme Court case Branzburg v. Hayes, creates significant ambiguity regarding journalists' protection of confidential sources. They contend that the D.C. Circuit's application of the standard is too easily satisfied by plaintiffs, potentially allowing individuals like Chen to circumvent press protections and force source disclosure, even in national security matters.

Supporters of Herridge argue that the court should adopt more protective standards, similar to those used in other circuits, or establish a new standard that allows judges to consider the merits of a case before compelling source disclosure. They point to the potential for a case like Chen's, which they describe as anemic and dubious, to undermine the foundational protections of a free press.

This case highlights ongoing tensions between national security interests, the public's right to information, and the ability of journalists to protect their confidential sources, a principle often referred to as journalistic privilege. The Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear Herridge's appeal could have significant implications for the future of investigative journalism in the United States.