Five reporters held in contempt and fined in Wen Ho Lee Privacy Act civil suit; case settled for $750,000
In August 2004, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson held five federal reporters in contempt and ordered $500-per-day fines for refusing to identify their government sources in Wen Ho Lee's Privacy Act civil lawsuit against the Department of Justice. Affected reporters included Walter Pincus (Washington Post), H. Josef Hebert (Associated Press), Robert Drogin (Los Angeles Times), Pierre Thomas (ABC News), and James Risen (New York Times). The case settled June 2, 2006, with media organizations collectively paying Lee approximately $750,000; contempt orders were vacated.
Dates: Subpoenas 2003–2004; contempt orders August 18, 2004; D.C. Circuit decision Lee v. Department of Justice, 413 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2005); settlement June 2, 2006. Individuals and organizations: Walter Pincus (WaPo); H. Josef Hebert (AP); Robert Drogin (LAT); Pierre Thomas (ABC); James Risen (NYT); a sixth reporter whose identity was disputed; Wen Ho Lee (plaintiff, Los Alamos scientist); U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. What happened: Lee, accused of spying for China (charges later reduced to a single mishandling-classified-data count), sued under the Privacy Act alleging federal officials unlawfully leaked information about him. He sought reporters' source identities to prove government culpability. Five reporters refused to identify sources and were held in contempt with daily fines that accumulated to ~$750,000. The D.C. Circuit declined to recognize a broad reporter's privilege in civil cases where information was directly relevant and unavailable elsewhere. Media organizations collectively settled with Lee for $750,000 in 2006; contempt orders were vacated as part of the settlement. Legal authority used: Civil discovery subpoenas; civil contempt under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37/45. Outcome: No reporter imprisoned. Settlement vacated contempt. Chilling precedent for civil-suit source subpoenas in federal courts. Why it matters: Confidential sources were directly at issue; contempt was enforced via fines, not withdrawn until settlement. The case set the major federal precedent that the qualified reporter's privilege in civil cases is weak where the plaintiff shows compelling need.