Former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge held in civil contempt and fined $800/day for refusing to identify confidential source

Dates: 2017 (original Fox News reporting on Yanping Chen); 2018 (Chen filed Privacy Act civil suit, No. 1:18-cv-03074, D.D.C.); August 2023 (subpoena to Herridge partially upheld); February 29, 2024 (civil contempt order, $800/day fine); November 18, 2024 (D.C. Circuit oral argument); September 30, 2025 (D.C. Circuit affirms, No. 24-5050); June 23, 2026 (D.C. Circuit denies emergency stay); June 26, 2026 (Herridge petitions U.S. Supreme Court). Individuals and organizations: Catherine Herridge (formerly Fox News, later CBS News, freelance at time of contempt); Yanping Chen (plaintiff, Chinese-American physicist who was investigated but never charged by the FBI); FBI (defendant in underlying suit); U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper; D.C. Circuit; CBS News (agreed to indemnify accruing fines); Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Freedom of the Press Foundation (amici). What happened: Chen sued the FBI alleging unlawful Privacy Act disclosure of information about her to Herridge, who reported in 2017 on the FBI's investigation. During civil discovery, Chen subpoenaed Herridge to identify her sources. Herridge refused, invoking the common-law reporter's privilege. Judge Cooper held her in civil contempt on February 29, 2024 with an $800/day fine, stayed pending appeal. On September 30, 2025, the D.C. Circuit affirmed, ruling the common-law privilege did not shield Herridge in a civil Privacy Act suit where the plaintiff had shown compelling need. On June 23, 2026 the D.C. Circuit denied an emergency stay. On June 26, 2026 Herridge petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of the daily fine. Legal authority used: Civil deposition subpoena in federal Privacy Act litigation; civil contempt under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37/45. Outcome: Active civil contempt; fine accruing; Supreme Court petition pending as of late June 2026. Herridge has not revealed her sources. The Garland-era and Bondi-era DOJ media policies do not apply because the compulsion comes from a private civil litigant, not from DOJ. Why it matters: Confidential journalistic sources are directly at issue; the contempt has been enforced (not withdrawn) and is the subject of the first modern Supreme Court emergency petition over journalist source-protection contempt. The case exposes a significant gap in U.S. press protections: executive-branch policies do not reach civil litigants' subpoenas, and the federal common-law privilege has now been substantially narrowed in the D.C. Circuit.