Federal Judge Considers Holding Journalist in Contempt for Refusing to Reveal Sources in Case Involving Chinese American Scientist

Police – Accident – Death – Obituary News : WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge in Washington is currently deliberating whether to hold veteran journalist Catherine Herridge in contempt for refusing to disclose her sources for stories about Chinese American scientist Yanping Chen. Chen, who was investigated by the FBI but never charged, has filed a lawsuit against the government, claiming that leaked details about the probe damaged her reputation. However, Herridge has declined to reveal how she obtained her information, leading Chen’s attorneys to seek contempt charges against the reporter. This case has significant implications for press freedom and the protection of sources.

The lawsuit, which has been ongoing for some time, highlights the clash between a journalist’s duty to safeguard sources and an individual’s right to seek compensation for perceived privacy violations by the government. Media advocates are closely monitoring the case, as they believe that forcing journalists to betray their promise of confidentiality could deter sources from providing information that exposes government wrongdoing. Attorney Floyd Abrams, who previously represented New York Times reporter Judith Miller in a similar case, argued that ordering the disclosure of confidential sources would result in less information being available to the public, particularly concerning important and significant stories.

The stories published by Herridge, who now works at CBS but was previously a reporter for Fox News, focused on Yanping Chen’s alleged ties to the Chinese military and her potential involvement in providing information about American servicemembers to the Chinese government. The reports relied on leaked items from the FBI investigation, including personal photographs, snippets of an FBI document, and information from Chen’s immigration and naturalization forms. During an interview under oath with Chen’s lawyer, Herridge repeatedly refused to answer questions about her sources, invoking her First Amendment rights.

Herridge’s attorney, Patrick Philbin, argued that forcing the journalist to reveal her sources would damage her credibility and harm her career. He emphasized the importance of protecting journalists’ sources, particularly in cases involving national security. Both Fox News and CBS News expressed their support for Herridge, stating that sanctioning a journalist for protecting a confidential source would violate the First Amendment and have a chilling effect on journalism in the country.

Legal battles over source disclosure are rare, although they have arisen in cases similar to Chen’s. In some instances, the Justice Department has settled lawsuits instead of compelling journalists to reveal their sources. For example, in 2008, the department agreed to pay $5.8 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Army scientist Steven Hatfill, who was wrongly identified as a person of interest in the 2001 Anthrax attacks. As a result, a contempt order against a journalist who was being asked to name her sources was vacated. In Chen’s case, her lawyers are seeking a fine that would increase over time until Herridge discloses her source.

While many states have reporter shield laws that protect journalists from subpoenas and forced source disclosure, there is currently no federal shield law. Gabe Rottman of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press emphasized the need for such legislation, stating that without credible assurances of confidentiality, sources may be unwilling to come forward, limiting journalists’ ability to inform the public and impeding the free flow of information.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper has not yet ruled on whether to hold Catherine Herridge in contempt. In a previous decision, he acknowledged the importance of a free press and the role of confidential sources in investigative journalism but determined that Chen’s need for the requested evidence outweighed Herridge’s First Amendment privilege in this case. The judge’s decision could have significant implications for press freedom and the protection of sources in the future..