The Supreme Court Should Take Herridge's Case to Protect Reporters' Confidential Sources
Source: "JONATHAN TURLEY: Supreme Court must protect Catherine Herridge and a free press | Fox News." October 28, 2026. www.foxnews.com
The Gist
The author says a reporter who did accurate national-security reporting is being punished for refusing to name her sources, in a lawsuit that looks weak and was designed to get around normal press protections. He argues the Supreme Court should take the case and set a clear, fair rule so reporters aren't forced to reveal confidential sources.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court should grant review in Catherine Herridge's case, reverse the lower courts, and establish a fair national standard that protects journalists' confidential sources.
Premises
- Herridge's reporting on Yanping Chen and UMT was accurate and important, supported by photos and an on-camera whistleblower, and led the government to end its contracts with UMT over national security concerns.
- Chen did not sue for defamation, which would have failed under New York Times v. Sullivan. She used the Privacy Act, suing government officials and subpoenaing Herridge to reveal her sources, which sidesteps the usual protections for the press.
- The Privacy Act claim was weak from the start. Much of the information was already public, including statements by whistleblower Stephen Rhoads, so it is hard to argue the photos caused Chen substantial harm.
- Herridge had to litigate in the D.C. federal courts, which take a more permissive approach to forcing disclosure of sources, before a judge whose spouse is an attorney connected to subjects of Herridge's reporting.
- The resulting contempt order and daily fines of $800 drained Herridge's family savings, showing how the current legal standard lets litigants coerce reporters into exposing sources.
- Herridge is asking the Court to set a fair standard so courts can balance the interests at stake in cases like hers, which only the Supreme Court can do given the inconsistent approaches across courts.
Assumptions
- Confidential sources are essential to investigative journalism, and compelled disclosure chills sources and reporting.
- A weak or dubious underlying claim should weigh heavily against compelling disclosure of sources.
- Herridge's case is representative of a broader problem rather than an isolated one.
- The Supreme Court is the right institution to set a uniform standard and should intervene.
- The perceived conflict of interest and the permissive D.C. approach affected the outcome.
- Press protections in defamation law should have analogues for privilege claims in other civil actions.