Reporter Faces $800-A-Day Fine for Protecting Her Source

Supreme Court building facade with classical columns — Photo: lito_lakwatsero / Shutterstock

A federal judge’s $800-a-day contempt fine against reporter Catherine Herridge is now active unless she identifies a confidential source tied to a 2017 leak case.

Story Snapshot

A judge ordered Herridge to reveal a source or face a daily $800 civil contempt fine.
The Supreme Court declined to pause the fine, keeping pressure on Herridge.
Herridge says the First Amendment protects her from disclosing sources.
The dispute stems from a 2017 story on an FBI probe of scientist Yanping Chen, who was not charged.

What Triggered The Daily Fine

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper held Catherine Herridge in civil contempt on February 29, 2024, after she refused to identify a confidential source connected to her 2017 reporting on Chinese American scientist Yanping Chen. The order imposed an $800-per-day fine until she complies, with an initial pause for appeals. The sanction is “coercive,” not criminal, and aims to force compliance with a prior disclosure order in the civil Privacy Act case brought by Chen.

The Supreme Court declined to stay the contempt penalties, leaving the daily fine in place while the case proceeds. Bloomberg Law and other outlets reported that eight justices denied emergency relief, allowing the lower court order to operate. That move does not end the case, but it increases pressure on Herridge to choose between paying the sanction or naming her source. Civil contempt ends once a witness complies or the orders change.

Herridge’s First Amendment Claim And The Legal Test

Herridge has invoked a qualified reporter’s privilege under the First Amendment, arguing she should not be forced to reveal her source. The District of Columbia Circuit recognizes a qualified privilege in civil cases, shaped by its Zerilli v. Smith test, which weighs the need for the information and the lack of alternatives. By contrast, the Supreme Court in Branzburg v. Hayes declined to create an absolute reporter’s privilege in grand jury settings, which still guides courts today.

The appeals record shows Herridge refused, under oath, to identify the source or describe how and when she received the leaked records. Chen alleges federal officials leaked protected files that harmed her reputation, and seeks the source to prove a Privacy Act violation. Courts often compel disclosure when the information goes to the heart of a claim and cannot be obtained elsewhere, which is the balance the trial judge found here.

Why Both Sides See High Stakes

Press advocates warn that forcing source disclosure can chill whistleblowers and limit reporting on national security, surveillance, and government conduct. Herridge argues that exposing a source would end her ability to do her job and deter future insiders from coming forward. Civil litigants and judges respond that the rule of law requires evidence when someone alleges a rights violation, especially if the leak itself may have broken federal privacy protections.

Many readers on the right and left see a deeper pattern. They worry powerful insiders leak when it suits them, yet the courts can compel disclosure when a case threatens the system’s image. Others fear the opposite: that shielding sources can hide misconduct by officials and media alike. This case lands in that mistrust. The court’s ruling stresses process and proof. Herridge’s stand stresses public oversight. The outcome will shape how far the government can push, and how firmly the press can push back.