SCOTUS Declines To Block Fine Against Former Fox Reporter Catherine Herridge
At the center of the dispute is a veteran investigative reporter, a confidential source, and a court order that could have lasting implications for how far the government can go in forcing reporters to reveal who provides them information.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday declined to block a court order requiring former Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge to pay an $800-per-day fine if she continues refusing to reveal the confidential source behind a series of reports involving a Chinese American scientist investigated by the FBI.
The decision allows a lower court’s contempt order to remain in effect while the legal battle continues.
Chief Justice John Roberts had temporarily paused the fine while the Supreme Court considered Herridge’s emergency appeal. In a brief order Thursday, however, the justices denied her request to stay the penalty. Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the lone justice noted as supporting the request.
The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by scientist Yanping Chen against the federal government after confidential information from an FBI investigation into her was leaked to the media.
Herridge, then an investigative reporter at Fox News, published a series of reports in 2017 examining Chen’s alleged ties to the Chinese military and raising questions about whether a Virginia-based professional school she founded was being used to gather information on U.S. servicemembers for the Chinese government.
Chen was investigated by the FBI for six years but was never charged with a crime.
Following the investigation, she sued the FBI and the Justice Department in 2018, alleging federal officials unlawfully leaked her private information in violation of the Privacy Act.
According to court filings, the leaked material included excerpts from an FBI interview summary, personal photographs, immigration records and information taken from an internal FBI presentation.
Chen argued the disclosures devastated both her personal and professional life, exposing her to intense public scrutiny, hate mail and death threats.
As part of the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered Herridge to sit for a deposition and answer questions about the identity of her confidential source or sources.
The judge concluded Chen’s need to identify the person responsible for the alleged leak outweighed Herridge’s claim that journalistic source confidentiality should be protected.
Herridge appeared for the deposition but refused to identify her sources.
Afterward, Cooper held her in civil contempt and imposed an $800-a-day fine, which was scheduled to begin after an appeals court upheld the ruling.
“Protecting the confidentiality of journalistic sourcing and the integrity of the newsgathering process is fundamental to a free and functioning democracy,” Fox News said in a statement.
“While we are deeply disappointed by the Court’s decision, our commitment to defending these critical First Amendment principles remains unwavering and we will be reviewing our options to further fight this injustice.”
Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, also criticized the ruling.
“Journalists facing contempt should not have to muster large payments to the court while they seek to vindicate First Amendment rights,” Brown said. “And forcing them to betray source confidences always has a harmful impact on the free flow of information to the public.”
Chen’s attorneys argued they have exhausted every other avenue for identifying the government official responsible for the leak and maintain the information is essential to proving their Privacy Act claims.
“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,” attorney Andrew Phillips said, The Associated Press reported.
Herridge worked for both Fox News and CBS News before launching an independent journalism career. Her attorneys did not immediately comment on the Supreme Court’s decision.
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire