Former Fox News reporter held in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoena

Journalist Catherine Herridge appealed a civil contempt charge against her on March 13, 2024, for refusing to testify about a confidential source. Her appeal was denied on Sept. 30, 2025.

In early 2017, Herridge published a series of investigative articles and broadcast reports for Fox News about a federal investigation into the possible foreign military ties of a Chinese American scientist, Yanping Chen. The articles cited and included excerpts of materials from the investigation.

No charges were brought against Chen, and in December 2018 she sued the FBI and the departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security, arguing that investigators violated her rights under the Privacy Act when her personal information was leaked to Herridge.

In June 2022, Chen subpoenaed Herridge for documents, communications and testimony concerning the federal investigation, as well as sufficient information to identify her source. A U.S. district judge quashed the requests for documents but ruled in August 2023 that the identity of the confidential source was central to the lawsuit’s claim and ordered Herridge to testify about her reporting and any sources.

In September, Herridge sat for a deposition but refused to answer any questions about the identity or intent of her sources, according to court filings.

In February 2024, the court held Herridge in contempt and ordered that she be fined $800 a day until she complied with the subpoena, but stayed the fine until an appeal of the ruling was completed.

In March, Herridge appealed the order, arguing that the court should consider factors beyond the centrality of the source’s identity to Chen’s claim and whether Chen had exhausted other avenues of obtaining the information. The court should also take into account the importance of “the First Amendment interest in protecting confidential sources to promote the newsgathering process,” especially in national security reporting, she wrote.

“The district court decision undermines First Amendment protections and would stifle the flow of information to the press,” Herridge argued, “because investigative journalists cannot function without credible assurances of confidentiality to their sources.”

She also argued that, if the First Amendment journalist’s privilege did not apply, the court should recognize a federal common law reporter’s privilege instead, similar to state reporter’s privilege laws.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed. In the Sept. 30 ruling on behalf of a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas wrote that per case law, only centrality and exhaustion need be considered in Privacy Act cases, “without any broader balancing of private and public interests.”

Katsas also argued that state reporter’s privilege laws vary widely “on the question whether case-by-case interest balancing is appropriate.”

“If the First Amendment itself does not entitle Herridge to disobey discovery obligations imposed on every other citizen in the circumstances of this case, we see little reason to create that entitlement as a matter of judge-made common law,” Katsas wrote.

The same day, the court issued a second order giving Herridge seven days to ask for a rehearing.

Freedom of the Press Foundation, of which the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker is a project, condemned the ruling. “Catherine Herridge has bravely risked financial ruin to stick up for the rights of all reporters,” FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm wrote on social media. “This decision does real damage to bedrock principles of press freedom, and we urge the Court of Appeals to re-hear this case with a full panel of judges.”